Skip to main content

Full text of "Repetition in Latin poetry : with special reference to the metrical treatment of repeated works"

See other formats



Repetition in Latin Poetry 








Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements 

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 

in the Faculty of Philosophy 

Columbia University 




Some account of the work previously done in the field which 
this treatise seeks to cover will be found in Chapter I, and in 
the opening pages of Chapter II. It is necessary here only to 
make a statement of the editions followed in the citations from 
the Latin authors. For Ennius, Vahlen 2 (1903) has been em- 
ployed ; for Plautus, Lindsay ; for Terence, Dziatzko ; for 
Lucilius, Marx; for Varro, Riese; for Lucretius, the Oxford 
text. All the other quotations (with a very few minor excep- 
tions) follow the Teubner texts. 
Lakeville, Connecticut, HUBERT McNEiLL POTEAT. 

February 2, 1912. 




So far as I have been able to learn, no single work in 
English deals with the subject of this thesis. In 1902 Pro- 
fessor Frank Frost Abbott published an interesting article, 
entitled The Use of Repetition in Latin to Secure Emphasis, 
Intensity, and Distinctness of Impression 1 . He discussed 
briefly, with only a few examples, Gemination (nos, nos con- 
sules desumus), Imperfect Gemination (ergo igitur; sed autem; 
quasi velut), Double Expressions (metuoque et timeo), the 
Figura Etymologica (sermtutem servit), the Repetition of a 
Grammatical Device, such as double frequentatives, double 
diminutives, and the double gradation of adverbs (bene plane; 
magis potius). He takes up no metrical questions. 

In the same year Professor A. B. Cook had an article in 
The Classical Review, 16.146-158, 256-267, on Unconscious 
Iterations. This theme does not fall within the scope of the 
present paper, which deals with conscious repetition. A part 
of his introductory paragraphs may, however, be quoted, as 
giving the opinion of a scholar concerning the field open to 
investigators of conscious repetition : "In setting aside as irrele- 
vant to my topic the phenomena of conscious and purposed 
iteration I cannot but express a hope that they may some day 
meet with the attention that they deserve. The popular per- 
haps one should say, the instinctive appreciation of rime 2 and 
refrain, with its far-reaching consequences in prose as well as 
in verse, is a theme by no means exhausted ; while the scien- 
tific study of such rhetorical tropes as depend for their effect 
on iteration has hardly begun. These and many other adja- 

- J 
1 University of Chicago Studies in Classical Philology, 3 (i90l). 3 ^~ 

3 Since this paper deals with the repetition of words and combina- 
tions of words, matters of rhyme and alliteration are passed over 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 

cent subjects offer abundant material for future investigators" 3 
Few English or American editors of Latin poets have noted 
with care or thoroughness the phenomenon of repetition; many 
have been content to pass striking examples of it with the 
barest mention. Thus Conington on Aeneid 3.523-524 merely 
repeats the seven-word comment of Servius on the repetition 
of rtaliam On the other hand, T. A. Page, in his edition of 
[oraces Odes (1886), has many interesting and illuminating 
olated comments on the poet's mastery of repetition and of 
e variety of effects gained by its use*. In his fullest note on 
e metrical side, that on 1.32.11, he says: "When the Roman 
s repeat a word they often place it so that the ictus falls 
ifferently on it in the two positions ... in consequence of 
ondness the poets often absolutely alter the quantity of 
. word when they repeat it". This statement will be dis- 
cussed later (page 44). 

In his Lucretius (first edition, 1864, fourth edition, 1886) 
Munro has two brief notes on repetition. On 4.1259, crauavl 
mvemant hguidis et liquida crassis, he notes only one of the 
etncal phenomena, the variation in liquidis . . . liquida He 
says nothing of the metrical correspondence in crassa crassis 
the fact that Lucretius is following a method very com- 
in the Latin poets, that of combining identical and variant 
etncal treatment of repeated words (see below, pages 46-47, 
49, etc.). His note on 2.452 is equally brief. 

Messrs. Haskins and Heitland, in their edition of Lucan 

Ion, 1887), several times make mention in the notes of 

repetition (see e. g on 5.348-350; 6.257-259; 7-551,557; 8.194- 

196). In the Introduction, the work of Mr. Heitland there is 

section (pages Ixxxi-lxxxii) dealing with the poet's "care- 

less repetition of words". 

3 1 have not been able to get W61fflin's article on Die Gemination 
im Lateimschen, published in the Sitzungsberichte der Koniglichen 
Bayenschen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Munich 1882) 
Compare his notes on Cam, !. 2 . 4> 32 . n , 35 . 15; ^' : lg 
- Epod. 4.20:17.1,7. See also Professor C. H. Moore's notes on 

35 ' 5 ' 6 ' 

2 i42 ' ' ' , 

,14.1-2, ,6.33-36, 17.9-12, 19.5-8: 3.3.16-18, etc., and his Introduction 

pages 32-33; Professor Shorey on Carm.i. I3 .i. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 3 

Professor E. A. Sonnenschein, in his critical note on Plautus, 
Most. 12 (first edition, 1884), called attention to the change 
in metrical accent in sine modo, 12, as compared with that of 
the same words in 1 1 . He then quotes Hermann, De R. Bent- 
leio eiusque editione Terentii, xxx, thus : "ubi repetiti verbi vel 
maior est vel minor vis, vel quocumque modo alia ratio, etiam 
pronuntiari debet aliter". He then adds himself: "But even 
apart from any 'alia ratio', we find the accent constantly varied, 
when a word is repeated in the same or the following verse". 
He considers, then, only repetition with variant metrical treat- 
ment. The <aliqua> ratio is apt rather to lead to identical 
metrical treatment (below, pages 44 ff.). In the revision of 
his edition of the Mostellaria (1907) he omits all reference to 
the matter. 

Professor E. T. Merrill, in his note on Catullus 62.28, quae 
pepigere viri, pepigerunt ante parentes, commented on "the 
change of form of the repeated tense for metrical reasons and 
for variety", comparing fuerunt . . .fuere from Lucilius (110- 
iii Marx), flevere . . . fleverunt from Vergil Eel. 10.13-15, 
and dididerunt, recreaverunt, rogarunt, dederunt, genuere from 
Lucr. 6.2-5. He does not remark that his examples from Lu- 
cilius and Vergil and the Catullus passage show identical metri- 
cal treatment (in Vergil flevere and fleverunt both carry the 
ictus and the word-accent on the penult : there is a double cor- 
respondence between lines 13 and 15, since ilium etiam occurs 
also in both verses at the beginning) ; indeed, no other metri- 
cal treatment is possible in the Lucilius or the Catullus pas- 
sage (see below, page 68). Professor Ellis, too, in his note on 
the Catullus passage, passes over matters of meter. On Mar- 
tial 1.36.1, a passage involving variant treatment, Friedlander 
(1886) quotes three or four "andere Beispiele des Wechsels 
der Quantitat (und des Accents) bei Wiederholung desselben 
Wortes in demselben oder in zwei aufeinander folgenden Ver- 

Professor W. A. Merrill, in his edition of Lucretius (1907), 
in notes on 3.145 and 4.1259 cites only examples involving 
variant metrical treatment. 

Professor Charles Knapp, in the Introduction to his edition 

4 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

of the Aeneid (1901), 263 (p. 83), writes: "In cases where 
a word or varying inflectional forms of a word are used twice 
or more in the same verse or in adjacent verses, the tendency 
among Latin poets seems to be to give such words and forms 
different metrical treatment, unless some special effect of 
emphasis, exultation, pathos, or the like is to be gained 
through repetition with the same metrical value. Sometimes 
both methods are combined". He quotes examples from the 
Aeneid, and comments briefly upon the effects obtained through 
repetition. Apparently, he writes with some hesitation, as if 
not absolutely sure of the rule he lays down. Later, in The 
American Journal of Philology, 27.81, he expressed the hope 
that some day he would be able to work the matter out in 

These citations, and others like them that might be gathered 
together, show that the metrical treatment of repeated words 
has received some attention at the hands of English and Ameri- 
can editors, but almost wholly in the shape of isolated notes, 
which confine themselves to the particular phenomenon repre- 
sented in the verse on which the note is made 5 . It may be 
remarked, however, that one can hardly expect an editor to 
follow out in full every one of the multitudinous lines of in- 
quiry suggested by the text before him. It is clear, in any 
event, that there is room for the investigation which the author 
of the present paper has set before himself. 

Manifestly, to print an absolutely exhaustive collection of 
repeated words from all the Latin poets or even from any 
considerable number of Latin poets would take too much space. 
Nor is the printing of such exhaustive collection necessary. I 
shall therefore, in the following chapters, deal with about twen- 
ty of the more important Latin poets covering the period ex- 
tending from Plautus through Prudentius ; the examples printed 
will be selected from the full collection which I have made 
for each author considered in this paper. 

8 1 have not examined German editions as systematically as I have 
the English and American. I recall, however, from them few comments 
on our theme. Similarly, our manuals of Latin literature give little 
or no heed to repetition. 


In this chapter I purpose to take up twenty-two represen- 
tative Latin poets, and to indicate the nature, the extent, and 
the relative effectiveness of repetition in their works. In the 
next chapter I hope to prove that the metrical treatment of 
repeated words is practically the same in all these poets; for 
the present that phrase of the subject will receive no con- 

Some general remarks, in no way exhaustive, may first be 
made. The use of repetition in prose to secure emphasis, in- 
tensity and distinctness of impression has been discussed by 
Professor Abbott in the paper referred to above (page i), 
and, apparently for both prose and verse, by Wolfflin, in a 
paper entitled Die Gemination im Lateinischen (note 3) 1 . 
Professor Abbott holds, rightly (page 86), that we are dealing 
here with phenomena which originated in every-day speech, 
not wUh the rhetoricians: "the rhetorician merely adopted ef- 
fective forms of expression which he found in common use 
among the people". "Repetition", he continues, ..."secures 
clearness and conveys the impression of sincerity and earnest- 
ness. The rhetorician, the orator, and the poet appreciate this 
fact, and employ it sometimes unconsciously, but often con- 
sciously, as a rhetorical device". 

Some forms of conscious employment of repetition by the 
poets, for reasons other than the simple attainment of clear- 
ness, will now be considered. Often, for example, the emo- 
tional suggestions of a passage are emphasized by repetition. 
Thus, in Aeneid 3.522-524 the joy of the Trojans when first 
they see the promised land is brought out by the triple Italiam 
(compare the OdXaTra, OaXarra. of the ten thousand Greeks), 

1 For other modern discussions see e. g. Wilkins on Cicero De Ora- 
tore 3.206-208; Sandys on Cicero Orator 135; Volkmann, Die Rhetorik 
der Griechen und R6mer a (in Miiller's Handbuch III), 43-44. 

6 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

In Catullus 3.3-4, 15-16, 

Passer mortuus est meae puellae, 
passer, deliciae meae puellae, 

tarn bellum mihi passerem abstulistis. 

o factum male ! io miselle passer ! 

the repetition makes the reader linger over the pathos of the 
situation described by the poem. Other similar examples are 
Aeneid 6.878,882, 

Heu pietas, heu prisca fides, invictaque bello 

heu miserande puer, siqua fata aspera rumpas. 
1.222 fata Lyci, fortemque Gyan, fortemque Cloanthum: 
Horace Carm. 2.14.1-2 

Eheu ! fugaces, Postume, Postume, 
labuntur anni. 

So, again, surprise is well brought out by repetition in Ter- 
ence Phorm. 510-511, 

PH. Pamphilam meam vendidit. AN. Quid? vendi- 

dit? GE. Ain? vendidit? 
PH. Vendidit... 

or Aen. 1.421-422 (see below, page 66). Again, the humor of 
a passage may be emphasized by repetition, as in Plautus Most. 
455-457, 460-462. In Aeneid 4.305-330 the passionate emo- 
tions brought forth by love betrayed are well set out, in part, 
by repetition, for instance, through the net- work of repeated 
pronouns, and such recurring stressing of the idea as we see 
in crudeli . . . crudelis (308, 311), Troia . . . Troia (312, 313), 
per (314, 316) and propter (320, 321). 

On the other hand, through repetition the suggestion of 
quiet, of repose is emphasized in such passages as Vergil, Bu- 
colics 10.42-45 

Hie gelidi fontes, hie mollia prata, Lycori, 
hie nemus ; hie ipso tecum consumerer aevo, 
or Horace, Carm. 2.16.1-8 

Otium divos rogat in patenti 
prensus Aegaeo, simul atra nubes 
condidit lunam neque certa fulgent 

sidera nautis; 
otium bello furiosa Thrace, 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 7 

otium Medi pharetra decori, 
Grosphe, non gemmis neque purpura ve- 
nale neque auro. 

Further examples of these and like or differing emotional 
values enhanced by repetition will be found in the later pages 
of this chapter. 

How is emotional effectiveness gained through repetition? 
In some cases, where the forms of the repeated word occur 
in sequence, as in Horace's Eheu, fugaces Postume, Postume, 
labuntur anni, the repetition forces or at least invites the reader 
to tarry at once over the idea which the writer is seeking to 
suggest; in other cases, where the forms of the repeated word 
are separated, more or less widely, the reader or hearer is 
made to recur, for further consideration, to the idea conveyed 
by the word. The repetition, then, does not per se express the 
varying emotions referred to above, but by making the mind 
of reader or hearer give close heed to the passage, either by 
lingering over it at once, or by recurring to it once or oftener, 
helps to bring out in clearer relief the thought inherent in the 
passage as a whole. Some further remarks on this point will 
be found here and there below, in comments on divers pas- 
sages. Mr. Charlton M. Lewis has explained in similar manner 
the effectiveness of alliteration. "Alliteration", he says, "(like 
other effects in tone-color) makes a group of words peculiarly 
prominent and effective, and intensifies the emotion suggested 
by their sense, whatever the sense may be" 2 . All this explains 
how repetition makes itself felt as a factor in the full expres- 
sion of so many widely different emotions. 

In various rhetorical figures repetition plays a part. To this 
subject some attention was given by Latin writers 3 . The 
Auctor ad Herennium 4.13.19 to 4.28.39 discusses various fig- 
ures some at least of which involve repetition: see especially 
4.13.19 (page 307 Marx); 4.14.21 (310); 4.21.29, 4.22.30-31 

(320-323) ; 4-25-35 (327) ; 4.28.38-39 (331-333). 

* Lewis, The Principles of English Verse, 137. 

8 It had, of course, been considered by Greek writers ; see the works 
referred to by Wilkins and Sandys, especially the latter, in their notes 
on Cicero De Oratore 3.206-208, Orator 135. 

8 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

Cicero, in De Oratore 3.206-208, makes Crassus run over 
the chief lumina verborum, figures of speech. Crassus does 
this so briefly, however, that in 209 Cotta comments thus : quae 
quidem te, Crasse, video, quod nota esse nobis putes, sine 
definitionibus et sine exemplis effudisse 4 . In the figures named, 
and in fact to some extent, spite of Cotta's comment, defined, 
repetition plays a prominent part. In Orator 135 Cicero re- 
turned to the subject, speaking more briefly than he had in 
the De Oratore, but using, in some respects, clearer language 
than he had employed in the earlier work. 

Quintilian labels a long chapter (9.3) De Figuris Verborum; 
the figures treated in 18-57 result per adiectionem, i. e. in 
the main, through repetition in divers forms. In Baehrens, 
Poetae Latini Minores, 4. pages 273-285, there is a collection 
of verses of unknown authorship, which describe several fig- 
ures involving repetition. Three lines are given to each ; there 
is a brief definition, followed by an example. 

The Auctor ad Herennium, Cicero and Quintilian were 
thinking, of course, of oratory and prose, but what they say 
applies in part also to verse. 

I have not, in this dissertation, attempted any such scientific 
and exhaustive study of the rhetorical tropes which depend 
for their effectiveness on repetition as Professor Cook desider- 
ates (see above, pages 1-2). Indeed, the studies resulting in 
the present paper are a necessary preliminary to such examin- 
ation; further, in that examination prose, too, must be con- 
sidered. At some later day I hope to take up that study in a 
thorough-going fashion. For the present I shall merely re- 
mark that at appropriate points below, as it becomes neces- 
sary to name rhetorical figures involving repetition, I shall 
define them, where necessary, as clearly as possible, with ref- 
erences to ancient discussions of them, so far as these dis- 
cussions are known to me. 

In Plautus conversational repetition is employed, naturally, 
with the greatest frequency, to secure clearness or emphasis or 
to add to the humor of a passage. For examples of repetition 

*The Auctor ad Herennium and Quintilian give examples. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 9 

to add to the humor see e. g. Capt. 255-256, Most. 455-457, 
460-462, 832-838, and the constant iteration of faenus in Most. 
580 fT., especially in 603-605 (in 605 Plautus himself, through 
Tranio's words, Faenus illic, faenus hid, calls attention to the 
effectiveness of the repetition in this passage), and that of 
aedis in Most. 638 ff. 

In Mostellaria 364-375 will be seen an interesting phenom- 
enon of this conversational iteration (common especially in 
rapid dialogue), the interrogative repetition, by one actor, of 
a word or words just employed by another; the repetition helps 
to express surprise or incredulity. Other instances are Most. 
595 TH. Non dat, non debet. DA. Non debet? io2,S-io2g 
SI. ideo aedificare hie velle aiebat in tuis. TH. Hie aedifi- 
care volui? The reverse form of iteration, by which the 
words of a question are repeated by another character in de- 
clarative form, conditioned as it is by the lack of a single 
effective, ever-ready word for 'yes', is, of course, common, 
and needs no illustration. Both methods are occasionally com- 
bined, as e. g. in Most. 973^974. 

In another variety of conversational iteration, a simple word 
used by the first character is repeated by the second in a dif- 
ferent, usually in an intensive, form; frequently, too, there is 
some accompanying word likewise suggestive of increasing 
intensity (such as inquam or immo). Examples are Most. 554 
TR. Negat scelestus? TH. Negitat, inquam; Captivi 289 HE. 
Quid tu ais? tenaxne pater est eius? PH. Immo edepol 

In general it may be said that Plautus cares little or nothing 
about the finer effects of repetition and only in the rarest in- 
stances strives to attain them 5 . 

8 Some effective instances have already been noted (Most. 580-605, 
especially 603-605, 638-642). An extreme form of repetition common 
in Plautus, according to our manuscripts, is the repetition of a thought 
(not merely a word) in divers forms, especially in the cantica. This 
does not, however, directly concern us. Editors have, in general, re- 
garded it as inartistic, and have deleted many verses in such passages. 
I sympathize, however, with Professor Abbott's argument in his Repeti- 
tion, etc., page 76, note I. 

io Repetition In Latin Poetry 

Ennius, called "the father of Roman poetry", may also with 
perfect justice be said to be, in Latin literature, the father of 
artistic repetition; he shows considerable skill in obtaining 
emphasis and various rhetorical effects through iteration. First, 
we may compare Annales 110-113 (sorrow combined with re- 
ligious exaltation is expressed) : 

Pectora . . . tenet desiderium, simul inter 
sese sic memorant "O Romule, Romule die, 
qualem te patriae custodem di genuerunt ! 
O pater, O genitor, O sanguen dis oriundum !" 
There is fine anaphoraic repetition 6 in Annales 91-92 

et simul ex alto longe pulcherruma praepes 
laeva volavit avis, simul aureus exoritur sol 7 . 
So also in Scenica 260-261 

multi suam rem bene gessere et publicam patria 

multi qui domi aetatem agerent propterea sunt 

An effective epizeuxis 8 occurs in Scenica 28 

6 1. e. repetition of the same word or words at the beginning of two 
or more successive clauses or sentences or verses. It is not named in 
Cicero De Orat.3.2o6-2o8 or Orat. 135, but it is defined there as eiusdem 
verbi crebra ... a primo repetitio and cum . . . ab eodeni verbo ducitur 
saepius oratio. See Wilkins and Sandys ad locc. Compare also Cicero 
Part. Orat. 21. Auctor ad Her. calls it merely repetitio, and defines it 
by cum continenter ab uno atque eodeni verbo.. . . principia sumuntur 
(three fine examples are given). In 9.3.30 Quintilian plainly has 
anaphora in mind, though he does not use that name ; he defines the 
figure merely as one of those attained per adiectionem (28). See R. 
Volkmann, Die Rhetorik der Greichen und Romer *, 398 , Volkmann 3 , 

T Strictly speaking, this is not a perfect anaphora, since the first 
clause is opened by et. But the et is obviously used for metrical 
reasons, simul receives (necessarily) the same metrical treatment in 
both lines. 

8 1. e. the repetition of a word twice in the same clause or phrase, 
without change of form, and with no intervening words. Cicero De 
Orat. 3.206 speaks merely of geminatio verborum, i.e. he uses the generic 
term, not the name of the species. In Orat. 135 he says we have</www 
orationis^>cum . . . duplicantur iteranturque verba . . . aut adiungitur 
idem iteratum aut idem ad extremum refertur. Here duplicantur seems 
to indicate geminatio in general, adiungitur (interpreted in the light of 

Repetition In Latin Poetry u 

. . . Incede, incede, adsunt, me expetunt. 

Ennius is fond of piling up repeated words in one line. Some- 
times the effect is bad, as in Saturae 59-62 (with the prolonged 
play on frustror and frustra esse). Two instances, however, 
which are productive of pleasant effects are Scenica 234-236 
Otio qui nescit uti 

plus negoti habet quam cum est negotium in negotio, 

Nam cui quod agat institutumst non ullo negotio 

id agit, etc. 
and Scenica 240 

imus hue, hinc illuc, cum illuc ventum est, ire illuc 

lubet 9 . 

Effective, too, is Scenica 298 Stultus est qui cupida mente 
cupienter cupit, 'He is a fool who, desiring things with mind 
desirous, desires them desirously'. 

Terence exhibits the same characteristics as Plautus, but in 
a less degree. There is, it goes without saying, conversational 
repetition, in all the forms seen in Plautus, save perhaps the 
last mentioned above, pages 8-9. To realize the humorous 
effects Terence was able to gain through repetition, we need 
only compare Heaut. 975-977, Phormio 373-374, 950-951, 
Adelphoe 933-935, Andria 184, etc. 

Terence is much more sensible of the finer effects obtainable 
through repetition than is Plautus. Thus we have striking 
anaphora and antistrophe 10 in Andria 784 CH. Audivi iam 

the following words) some species of geminatio, as epizeuxis. See 
Wilkins and Sandys ad locc. (Wilkins on adiunctio, ad fin., page 119 A). 
Volkmann 3 , 44, calls this figure dwShrXaxm, ira\\i\oyla, conduplicatio, 

9 For other examples of effective repetition in Ennius, see Annales 
1-2, 117, 177, 194, 287-289, 334-336, 493; Scenica 7-9, 56-62, 201-202, 
228-229, 270-272, 322-323. 

10 I.e. the repetition of the same word at the end of two or more 
clauses, sentences, or verses. In Cic.De Orat. 206 it is a species of 
geminatio, defined within the following words : eiusdem verbi crebra 
turn a primo repetitio, turn in extremum conversio; cf. Orat. 135 oratio 
... in idem conicitur; Auct. ad Her. 4.13.19 Conversio est, per quam non, 
ut ante, primum repetimus verbum, sed ad postremum continenter re- 
vertimur . . . ; Quint.9.3-3O et ab iisdem verbis plura acriter et instanter 
incipiunt . . . et in iisdem desinunt . . . Volkmann 3 , 44, calls this figure 
conversio, and says it is rarer than anaphora. 

12 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

omnia. DA. Anne haec tu omnia? A fine effect is gained by 
the epizeuxis in Adelphoe 687: lam id peccatum primum 
magnum, magnum, at humanum tamen 11 . Phormio 710, 841, 
and 919-920 may be noted in this connection. 

The respective attitudes, then, of Plautus and Terence to- 
ward repetition and their treatment of it follow exactly the 
general lines of distinction usually drawn between the two 
poets. Plautus is exuberant, often careless and tautological, in 
his repetition ; Terence is always artistic and restrained. 

Lucilius employs iteration with great frequency, and, often, 
with considerable success. In some passages, as in iio-m, re- 
peated words are piled up (much as in certain passages of 
Ennius) 12 

Verum haec ludus ibi susque omnia deque fuerunt, 
susque et deque fuere, inquam, omnia ludus 


Indeed, this tendency is, for good or for bad, the most charac- 
teristic feature of Lucilian repetition. Other examples are 
184-185 Ut per(i)isse velis, quern visere nolueris, cum 

debueris. Hoc 'nolueris' et 'debueris' te . . . 
878 magno, non magna mercede, magno quod conduxeris 
1284-1286 Quis hunc currere ecum nos atque equitare videmus, 
his equitat curritque. Oculis equitare videmus: 
ergo oculis equitat. 

Verses 839-840 contain an antistrophe that is worthy of notice : 
vecte atque ancipiti ferro effringam cardines. 
Nemo hos ancipites ferro effringat cardines. 
Some of the repetition in Lucilius is, in effect, a school- 
master's repetition (didactic repetition), to score a philological 
point: see e. g. examples in such verses as are discussed by 
Professor R. G. Kent, in his paper, Lucilius on El and I, The 
American Journal of Philology, 32.273 ff. It will suffice to 
quote one such passage, 356-361, in extenso: 

Fervere, ne longum. Vero : hoc lectoribus tradam. 
Fervit aqua et fervet, fervit nunc, fervet ad annum, 
'meille' hominum, duo 'meilia', item hue e utroque 
opus 'meiles', 

11 Compare also, for interesting repetition, Heaut.322-324, 348, 924- 
925, 975-977 ; Phormio 206-208, 286-287, 373-374, 397-398, 496, etc. 
" Cf. p. ii. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 13 

'meilitiam'. Tenues i: 'pilam' in qua lusimus, 


quo piso, tenues. Si plura haec feceris pila 
quae iacimus, addes e 'peila' ut plenius fiat. 
Compare also 362-366, 369-370. In 729-730, again, we ob- 
serve a notable polysyndeton 14 (which in this instance produces 
also anaphora) : 

Cum pacem peto, cum placo, cum adeo et cum 

appello 'meam', 
cum mei me adeunt servuli, non 'dominam' ego ap- 

pellem meam. 

Two citations will show that Lucilius understood thoroughly 
the value of repetition as a metrical and rhetorical device. 
93-94 chaere, inquam, Tite, lictores, turma, omnis cho- 

rusque : 
"chaere, Tite". hinc hostis mi Albucius, hinc inimi- 


132 ostrea nulla fuit, non purpura, nulla peloris 15 . 
Varro repeats monosyllables chiefly. Two varieties of this 
monosyllabic iteration, both of the anaphoraic type, are to be 
noted. In the first, the word is repeated at the beginning of 
successive lines, in the other at the beginning of two successive 
clauses in the same line. Examples are Synephebus V (p. 221) 

Hie narium seplasiae, 
hie ^SVTTVOVS Neapolis. 

Est Modus Matulae I (p. 123) 

Vino nihil iucundius quisquam bibit. 

Hoc aegritudinem ad medendam invenerunt, 

hoc hilaritatis dulce seminarium, 

hoc continet coagulum convivia. 
Sexagessis X (p. 216) 

Sic canis fit e catello, sic e tritico spica. 
In AN0PQIIOIIOAI2 II (p. 103) both methods are combined: 

Non fit thesaurus, non auro pectu' solutum ; 

non demunt animis curas ac relligiones 

Persarum montes, non atria divit:' Crassi. 

13 Professor Kent (see page 12) discusses fully various readings and 
matters of punctuation in these passages. He often differs from Marx'. 
"Such figures as polysyndeton (see e.g. Quint. 9-3-5O-50 and chias- 
mus need no definition. 
15 Cf. also 9, 20-22, 27-30, 140-141, 218, 243-246, 485-489, 992-095, 

IOI5-IOI6, IOI9-I02I, I220-I22I, 1326-1333, 1334-1336. 

14 Repetition hi Latin Poetry 

Varro occasionally repeats longer words, e. g. in Ammon Me- 
treis I 

Nos barbari, quod innocentes in gabulum suffigimus 
homines, et vos non barbari, qui noxios absolvitis? 
In barbari-barbari we have identical metrical treatment 16 . 

In Lucretius the most characteristic, indeed, almost the only 
type of repetition is the repetition of a leading word from 
clause to clause, usually in different forms ; the purpose of such 
repetition is to secure the clearness so essential in an elaborate 
and intricate discussion 17 . It may be said, however, that Lucre- 
tius is occasionally led by his apparent desire for perfect clear- 
ness into inartistic and even careless iteration 18 . The finest 
example of Lucretius's characteristic repetition is in 3.554-608; 
see also 4.347-493, 6.132-214, 6.1255-1286. These passages in- 
volve, respectively, varying forms of videre, nubes and nubila, 
corpora 19 . Lucretius is rarely concerned with the more subtle 
effects of repetition. One striking example, however, of his 
employment of repetition for rhetorical effect is seen in 1.66-69 
primum Graius homo mortalis lollere contra 
est oculos ausus primusque obsistere contra, 
quern neque fama deum nee fulmina nee minitanti 
murmure compressit caelum . . . 
The repetition primum-primusque-primus (71) and the itera- 

M Cf . also Eumenides XXVI, XXVII, XXXIX. 

17 To some extent this repetition in Lucretius is conditioned by the 
lack of a sufficiently extensive philosophical vocabulary: see Lucr. i. 
136-139, 880-883, 925-929; 2.1022-1025; 3.258-261, and Miss K. C. Reiley's 
dissertation, Studies in the Philosophical Terminology of Lucretius and 
Cicero, 3-7. Though Lucretius's primary purpose in his repetition is 
logical rather than rhetorical, in its better and more effective forms 
Lucretian repetition approaches what the Auctor ad Herennium 4.14.20 
calls traductio. His definition runs thus : Traductio est quae facit uti, 
cum idem verbum crebrius ponatur, non modum non offendat animum, 
sed etiam concinniorem orationem reddat. In Cicero De Oratore 3.167 
traductio is used rather of metaphor: see Wilkins ad loc. 

18 Cf . 4.416-419. I am glad to find my own opinion here supported by 
Duff, A Literary History of Rome (London, 1909), 298. 

19 Other examples are 4.1257-1262 (semina . . . seminibus . . . crassa . . . 
liquidis . . . liquida crassis) ; 5.991-993 (viva . . . viva . . . vivo} ; 6.777, 
779, 78i, 789-790 (forms of multus}. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 15 

tion in neque - nee - nee help to bring out the poet's pride in the 
facts he is recording 20 . 

In Catullus we find at least three types of repetition which 
occur so frequently that we are justified in terming them char- 
acteristic. They are anaphora, antistrophe and refrain. Ex- 
amples of anaphora are 
51 b. 13-16 Otium, Catulle, tibi molestumst: 
otio exsultas nimiumque gestis. 
Otium et reges prius et beatas 

perdidit urbes. 

63.21-25 Ubi cymbalum sonat vox, ubi tympana reboant, 
tibicen ubi canit Phryx curvo grave calamo, 
ubi capita Maenades vi iaciunt ederigerae, 
ubi sacra sancta acutis ululatibus agitant, 
ubi suevit ilia divae volitare vapa cohors . . . 
In 64 turn begins verses 19, 20, 21, and gnate is the first word in 
215-216. 95.1,5,6 is interesting. 78 may be quoted in full: 

Callus habet fratres, quorumst lepidissima coniunx 

alterius, lepidus filius alterius. 
Callus homost bellus : nam dukes iungit amores, 

cum puero ut bello bella puella cubet. 
Callus homost stultus nee se videt esse maritum, 

qui patruus patrui monstret adulterium. 

Here, the figure 21 in 2, the partial refrain in 3 and 5, and the 
polyptoton 22 in 6 are worthy of note. This combining of fig- 

30 Since the above was written, Professor J. S. Reid's note on this 
passage in Harvard Studies 22.1-2 has lent fresh interest to the repeti- 
tion here discussed ; Professor Reid remarks that "the false claim to 
have been the first or the only man to have performed some intellectual 
feat is common in ancient literature" (he sees such a false claim by 
Lucretius himself in 5.336-337 hanc primus cum primis ipse repertus 
nunc ego sum in patrias qui possim vertere voces). 

For other instances of Lucretian iteration see 1.6-9, 23, 229-231, 
688-691; 2.54-59; 3.445-446; 4.861-864, 1018-1020; 5-332-333, 1186-1191; 
6.2-6, 299-300, 1276-1278. 

" I.e. the repetition of the same word or words at the beginning and 
at the end of the sentence or verse. Quint 9.3.34 refers to this figure, 
without naming it, in the following words : Respondent primis et 
ultima : Multi et graves dolores inventi parentibus et propinquis multi. 

"I.e. the repetition of a word in different case- forms, in the same 
connection. Compare Cic. De Orat.3.2O7 Est etiam . . . quod in multis 
casibus ponitur ; Orat.i35 cum eiusdem nominis casus saepius commu- 
tantur, with the notes of Wilkins and Sandys ; Auct. ad Her. 4.20.30 

16 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

ures will be further illustrated later 23 . For antistrophe we may 

8.11-12,19 sed obstinata mente perfer, obdura. 
Vale puella! iam Catullus obdurat, 

At tu, Catulle, destinatus obdura. 
49.4-7 gratias tibi maximas Catullus 
agit pessimus omnium poeta, 
tanto pessimus omnium poeta 
quanto tu optimus omnium patronus. 

Antistrophe occurs most frequently in connection with ana- 
phora 24 , as in 3.3-4 : 

Passer mortuus est meae puellae, 

passer, deliciae meae puellae. 

In 5.7-10 we have anaphora (in dein and delude) and antistro- 
phe (in mille, 7 and 9, and centum) interwoven in a most inter- 
esting fashion. So also in 

34.1-4 Dianae sumus in fide 

puellae et pueri integri ; 

Dianam pueri integri 

puellaeque canamus. 
In 45- 2 i- 2 4, 

Unam Septimius misellus Acmen 

mavult quam Syrias Britanniasque : 

uno in Septimio fidelis Acme 

facit delicias libidinesque, 

the antistrophae in Acmen - Acme and -que - que are especially 
worthy of note. In 62.42-44 and 53-55 there are interesting 
double antistrophae and anaphorae. 

Some effective examples of anadiplosis 25 are to be found in 

Tertium genus est, quod versatur in casuum commutatione aut unius aut 
plurium nominum ; Quint.9-3.36-37 Fit casibus modo hoc schema , quod 
iroXtfTTTwroi' vocant. 

23 See below on this page, and page 17. 

24 Volkmann 8 , 44, calls this combination symploce, complexio. Quin- 
tilian describes it in 9.3.31 ; see also Wilkins on Cic. De Orat.3.2o6 
(page 119 B, bottom-i2o), Sandys on Orator 135 (page 138 A). 

39 1. e. repetition of a word which closes a clause, sentence or line at 
the beginning of the following clause, sentence or line. See Volkmann 8 , 
43-44 . In Quintilian 9.3.44 we have Prioris sententiae verbum ac 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 17 

Catullus, e. g. in 

61.8-9 flammeum cape, laetus hue, 

hue veni . . . 
61.206-207 multa milia ludi. 

Ludite ut libet . . . 
64.26-27 Thessaliae columen Peleu, cui luppiter ipse, 

ipse suos divom genitor concessit amores. 
64.285-286 Confestim Penios adest, viridantia Tempe, 

Tempe, quae silvae cingunt super impendentes. 
We have a combination of anaphora and antimetabole 26 in 
58.1-3 Caeli, Lesbia nostra, Lesbia ilia, 

ilia Lesbia, quam Catullus unam 

plus quam se atque suos amavit omnes. 
In 38.1-3 we find anaphora and gemination (magis magis) : 

Malest, Cornifici, tuo Catullo, 

malest me hercule, et est laboriose, 

et magis magis in dies et horas. 

In 61.51,54,56,61,64,66,69,74, tu and te are repeated in such a 
manner as to create a traductio. 

Catullus employs the refrain more than any other Latin poet. 
Whole lines are repeated, as in 16.1,14; 29.5,9; 5 2 - l A> 61.4-5, 
39-40, 49-50, 59-60; 61.63-65, 68-70, 73-75 (two whole lines and 
part of a third) ; 61.92,96,106,116,120-121,140-141,145-146,150- 
61.131,136 ; 62.5,10,19,25,31,33,38,48,58^66 564.327,333,337,342. 
347,352,356,361,365,37^375,378,381. But his partial refrains 
are more interesting than the cases in which a whole line or 
more constitutes the repetend. Examples are 
56.1-4 O rem ridiculam, Cato, et iocosam 

dignamque auribus et tuo cachinno. 

Ride, quidquid amas, Cato, Catullum: 

res est ridicula et nimis iocosa. 
62.20,26 Hespere, qui caelo fertur crudelior ignis? 

Hespere, qui caelo lucet iocundior ignis? 

sequentis primum frequenter est idem, quo quidem schemate utuntur 
poetae saepius : 

Pierldes, vos haec facietis maxima Gallo, 

Gallo . . . 

Sed ne oratores quidem raro : Hie tamen vivit. Vivitne? Immo vero 
in Senatum venit. 
** I. e. repetition in which words or ideas appear in inverse order. 

*8 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

Verse 32 contains just an echo : 

Hesperus e nobis, aequales, abstulit unam. 
Note also 6245,56 

sic virgo, dum intacta manet, dum cara suis est ; 

sic virgo, dum intacta manet, dum inculta senescit 27 . 
In 68, verses 92-93 echo 20-21, while 22-24 are repeated 
without change in 94-96. Two short poems containing partial 
refrains are 82 and 92 28 . 

Vergil employs repetition with greater frequency and with 
more signal success than any other Latin poet, with the possible 
exception of Horace and Martial. In Aeneid 6 there are about 
500 examples of repeated words, and in the Bucolics approxi- 
mately 650 (in my collections some instances where the repetend 
is et or -que have been disregarded). It would be easy, there- 
fore, to devote a long chapter to Vergil alone. There is no one 
type which may be called characteristic, for he employs all 
types with great freedom and with equal success. When we 
come to study in Chapter III the metrical treatment of repeated 
words, we shall find in Vergil the most orderly and consistent 
working out of the principles to be laid down in that chapter. 
Here let us note, first, some rhetorical effects which the poet 
obtains through iteration 29 . In Aeneid 6.45-46 we find a 
striking example of repetition expressing powerful excitement : 

ventum erat ad limen, cum virgo "Poscere fata 

tempus" ait; "deus, ecce, deus!" 

In 51-53, insistence upon immediate action is finely hit off by 
repetition : 

. . . "Cessas in vota precesque, 

Tros" ait "Aenea? Cessas? Neque enim ante dehis- 

attonitae magna ora domus" . . . 

27 The repetition is all the more effective if this passage is intepreted 
in the light of Professor Knapp's paper in The Classical Review 10. 

28 Cf. also, for effective repetition, 3.15-17; 4.22; 8.15-18; 9.3-5; 17.22; 
36.1; 42, 11-12; 43.1-4; 61.116-118, 128-140, 210-211; 62.28, 68-74; 63.12- 
13, 50, 61-73, 91; 64.195, 256-260, 334-336; 67.10-14; 68.99; 87; 94; 100 ; 
102; 110.4, 5; etc. 

29 See also above, p. 6. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 19 

To 3.521-524 reference has already been made (see above, p. 2). 
The rush of 523 is helped by the elision of the last syllable of 
the first word. The effect of haste is again finely obtained 
through repetition combined with elision in 3.639-640 

Sed fugite, o miseri, fugite atque ab litore funem 


In 3.436-439 the effect of awe is greatly enhanced by the repeti- 
tion of iterumque and of the name of the goddess, and by the 
identical metrical treatment : 

praedicam, et repetens iterumque iterumque monebo : 

lunonis magnae primum prece numen adora ; 

lunonis cane vota libens, dominamque potentem 

supplicibus supera donis . . . 

The dread solemnity of an oracular response is finely voiced by 
the repetition in 2.116-119: 

"Sanguine placastis ventos et virgine caesa, 

cum primum Iliacas, Danai, venistis ad oras; 

sanguine quaerendi reditus, animaque litandum 

Argolica" 30 . 

There is occasionally a piling up of repeated words which re- 
minds one of Ennius or Lucretius 31 , for example, in Bucolics 

formonsae myrtus Veneri, sua laurea Phoebo; 

Phyllis amat corylos; illas dum Phyllis amabit, 

nee myrtus vincet corylos, nee laurea Phoebi. 
In the Bucolics the natural charm of subject matter and style 
is enhanced by the use of the refrain 32 . This may be complete 

80 For other effective examples of repetition in the Aeneid see e. g. 
1.47-48, 222, 421-422, 553-554, 709, 750-752; 2.28-30, 108-110, 143-144, 
150-151, 189-192, 218, 241-243, 299, 306, 318-322, 483-484, 560-562, 571, 
581, 618, 733, 77o; 3-80, 119, 185-186, 193, 247-248, 253-254, 265, 435-438, 
623-626; 4-78-79, 83, 138-139, 169, 173-174, 182-183, 312-313, 413, 435-438, 
603, 628, 657; 5-73-78, 80, 116-118, 136-137, 154-158, 186-187, 218-219, 252- 
254, 320-324; 6.51-52, 69-70, 86, 258, 261, 277-278, 289-294, 372, 495-500, 
614-615, 651-655, 787-789, 899-901. 

31 See pp. 11-12 (and page n, note 9). 

33 Sometimes the partial refrain is due to the amoebean character of 
the verse (or at least fits in well with that amoebean character), as in 
3.43, 47, 104, 1 06. In 6.47, 52 the pathos that marks the passage as a 
whole is intensified by the repetition. In yet other places, and espe- 
cially in Eclogue 8, the recurrent refrain helps to break the thought up 
into small groups of lines easily apprehended, and to give the singer 

2O Repetition In Latin Poetry 

or partial. The complete refrain usually occurs several times, 
whereas the partial refrain is found, in most cases, only twice. 
Examples of a partial refrain are 
3.104,106 Die quibus in terris et eris mihi magnus Apollo 

Die quibus in terris inscripti nomina regum . . . 
4.60,62 Incipe, parve puer, risu cognoscere matrem, 

Incipe, parve puer : cui non risere parentes . . . 
6.47,52 A virgo infelix, quae te dementia cepit! 

A virgo infelix, tu nunc in montibus erras. 

In 8.47-50 we have a partial refrain, crudelis tu quoque, mater, 

along with a fine antimetabole 33 : 

Saevus Amor docuit natorum sanguine matrem 
commaculare manus ; crudelis tu quoque, mater : 
crudelis mater magis an puer improbus ille? 
improbus ille puer ; crudelis tu quoque, mater 34 . 

For an oft-repeated full refrain we may note 8.21,25,29,31,36. 

Incipe Maenalios mecum, mea tibia, versus, 
and 8.68,72,76,79,84,90,94,100,104 

Ducite ab urbe domum, mea carmina, ducite Daph- 

There is another type of repetition which is characteristic of 
the Bucolics 35 , the treatment of proper names. One may, to 
be sure, find proper names at almost any position in the verse, 
but Vergil is fond of making them close the verse (antistro- 
phe) 36 . 

5.57,61 sub pedibusque videt nubes et sidera Daphnis. 

ulla dolum meditantur : amat bonus otia Daphnis. 

pause, as it were, for breath or thought; the refrain thus plays in a 
way the role played in an actual contest of song by flourishes on the 
pipe between stanzas or groups of verses. 

33 See page 17, note 26. 

"Line 50 is omitted in the Teubner text. 

85 This type is rare in the Aeneid. But the repetition, of names is, in 
general, far less marked in the Aeneid than in the Bucolics. 

38 See page n, note 10. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 21 


transque caput iace, nee respexeris : his ego Daphnim 

Ducite ab urbe domum, mea carmina, ducite Daph- 

Parcite, ab urbe venit, iam parcite, carmina, Daph- 

9.10,16,18 omnia carminibus vestrum servasse Menalcan. 

nee tuus hie Moeris, nee viveret ipse Menalcas. 
paene simul tecum solatia rapta, Menalca? 
10.37-38,41 Certe, sive mihi Phyllis, sive esset Amyntas, 

seu quicumque furor quid turn, si fuscus Amyntas ? 

serta mihi Phyllis legeret, cantaret Amyntas. 
In 8.1,5 we find a combination of methods (proper names at the 
beginning, at the end and within the verses) : 

Pastorum Musam Damonis et Alphesiboei 

Damonis Musam dicemus et Alphesiboei. 

Occasionally a vocative of some word other than a proper name 
is found at the end of the verse, as in 

1.74,77 Ite meae, felix quondam pecus, ite capellae! 

carmina nulla canam ; non, me pascente, capellae . . . 
Vergil sometimes treats proper names in Homeric fashion 37 , as 

6.20-21 addit se sociam, timidisque supervenit Aegle, 

Aegle, Naiadum pulcherrima, iamque videnti, . . . 
An interesting traductio 38 is found in 8.67 ff. The word re- 
peated is carmina (once carminibus). carmina occurs also in 

8T Homer frequently repeats a proper name in the same sentence, at 
the beginning of a new verse. Compare e. g. Iliad 2.671-673, 870-871, 
6.395-396, etc. In some of these cases (e. g. 6.395-396) we have an ana- 
diplosis (page 16, note 25), as in Bucolics 6.20-21 above. 

88 See above, page 14, note 17. 

Tor other instances of repetition in Vergil compare Bucolics i-3-4 r 
27-32, 75-78; 2.8-9, 16, 31-33, 35-39, 56-58, 62-64, 68-71; 3.1-4, 19-23, 
50-53, 59-62, 74-79, 84-90; 4.1-3, 24-25, 50-52, 55-59; 5.16-17, 20-30, 41, 
51-52, 62-64; 6.5-12, 25, 29-30, 43-44, 55-56, 60-62; 7.2-4, 18-19, 65-70; 

22 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

The statements made concerning the variety and effectiveness 
of Vergil's repetition are true of Horace also, with only one 
subtraction. He repeats with much greater frequency and much 
better success in his Odes and Epodes than in the Sermones 
and the Epistulae. This is quite natural. Horace declares in 
Sermones 1.4.42 that he is writing sermoni propiora. In Epp. 
2.1.250-251 he calls his Epistles Sermones ... repentis per 
humum* . Though one allows here for a certain amount of 
make-believe, there is less poetic matter in the Sermones and 
the Epistles than in the Odes 41 . 

Of all the forms of repetition, Horace probably employs ana- 
phora with greatest frequency and most conspicuous success. He 
frequently connects stanzas or sentences by the repetition of an 
emphatic word, and thus avoids mechanical connection by such 
words as et, nam, enim, etc. Good examples are Carm. 1.2.4-5 
terruit urbem, 
terruit gentis . . . 
1.2.21-24 Audiet civis facuisse ferrum 

quo graves Persae melius perirent, 
audiet pugnas vitio parentum 

rara iuventus. 

2.3.17-19 Cedes coemptis saltibus, et dome 
villaque flavus quam Tiberis lavit, 
cedes 42 . , 

8.8-13, 23, 38-41, 44-45, 55-56, 63, 77-78, 81-85, 93-94; 9-5-n, 23-24, 
26-30, 47-48, 64-65; 10.2-10, 13-17, 18-21, 28-36, 53-54, 75-76. 

40 The close kinship of the Sermones and the Epistulae of Horace 
has often been noted. One of the theses which George Bancroft under- 
took to defend when, in 1820, he presented himself in Germany for his 
Doctor's degree was this : Epistolae Horatii forma non re differunt ab 
eius Satyris : see The Classical Weekly 2.30-31. Compare also Pro- 
fessor Hendrickson's paper, Are the Letters of Horace Satires? in 
The American Journal of Philology, 18.312-324. 

41 The poetic element actually in Horace's Sermones has been noted 
by L. Miiller in his edition of the Sermones, p. xiii, and has been 
carefully discussed in a dissertation by Phillip Howard Edwards, The 
Poetic Element in the Satires and Epistles of Horace (Baltimore, 
1905). But Mr. Edwards nowhere, so far as I have noted, comments 
on repetition. 

"Compare also 1.35-5-6, 9, 17. 21 (repetition of te) ; 2.4.3-5 (movit 
, . . movit) . 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 23 

Sermones 1.10.71-73 

saepe caput scaberet, vivos et roderet ungues. 

Saepe stilum vertas, iterum quae digna legi sint 

scripturus . . . 
Ars Poetica 175-176 

Multa ferunt anni venientes commoda secum, 

multa recedentes adimunt . . . 

Horace is fond of anadiplosis 43 also. Examples are. 
j Carm. 3.16.14-16 

subruit aemulos 

reges muneribus; munera navium 

saevos inlaqueant duces. 

Epod. 17.7 citumque retro solve, solve turbinem. 
Serm. 1.4.48 differt sermoni, sermo merus . . . 

We may observe now a few of the rhetorical effects Horace 
obtains through repetition, noting first the deep pathos of 
Carm. 2.14.1-2** 

Eheu! fugaces, Postume, Postume, 

labuntur anni . . . 

In 1.13.1-3 the lover's jealousy is well depicted by the repeated 
Telephus. To his excited imagination, Telephus is the one 
word ever on Lydia's lips; the position of Telephi in 1-2 
(antistrophe) adds notably to the effectiveness of the itera- 

Cum tu, Lydia, Telephi 

cervicem roseam, cerea Telephi 

laudas bracchia . . . 

To the expression of strong resolution and earnestness the 
repetition helps in Carm. 2.17.9-12 
non ego perfidum 

dixi sacramentum; ibimus, ibimus, 

utcumque praecedes, supremum 
carpere iter comites parati. 

Fine examples of eager appeal expressed by repetition are 
Carm. 2.19.7-8 

euhoe, parce Liber, 

parce, gravi metuende thyrso! 
Carm. 4.1.1-2 Intermissa, Venus, diu 

rursus bella moves? Parce, precor, precor. 

43 See above, page 16, note 25. 

44 See Page ad loc. 

24 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

In Carm. 3.3.18-20, 

Ilion, Ilion 
fatalis incestusque iudex 

et mulier peregrina vertit, 

solemnity and intense emotion are well emphasized by the 
repetition of Ilion. 

Another remarkable fact in connection with repetition in 
Horace is that in the Epodes epizeuxis is found far more fre- 
quently than any other type of iteration; it is found very 
rarely in the Odes, the Sermones and the Epistles. 
Epod. 4.20 hoc, hoc tribune militum ? 

5.53,54 nunc, nunc adeste, nunc in hostilis domos 

iram atque numen vertite. 
6.11-12 Cave, cave: namque in malos asperrimus 

parata tollo cornua. 
7.1 Q u , quo scelesti ruitis? 45 . . . 

The nearest approach to a refrain in Horace is Serm. 

Nunc ad me redeo libertino patre natum 
quern rodunt omnes libertino patre natum 46 . 
Here Horace is imitating the iteration by others of reflections 
on his humble origin. 

Tibullus repeats with much less frequency than Catullus, and 
confines his repetition, with rare exceptions, to anaphora. The 
exceptions are most frequently in the case of monosyllables, 
such as nee, et, neu, monosyllabic pronouns, etc. Examples 
involving anaphora are 

1.1.61-63 Flebis et arsuro positum me, Delia, lecto, 
tristibus et lacrimis oscula mixta dabis. 
Flebis : 
1.2.7-9 lanua difficilis domini, te verberet imber, 

te lovis imperio fulmina missa petant. 
lanua, iam pateas uni mihi, victa querellis . . . 

"Other examples are 14.6-7: 17.1; Carm. 4.13.17-18; Epp. 1.1.53-54. 

" Other interesting examples of repetition in general from Horace^ 
are Carm. 1.3.28-29, 5-9-12, 8.5-8, 12.51-52, 15.9-10, 19-5-7, 32.11, 35-15: 
2.13.18, 16.1-8, 33-36, 20.5-6: 3.5.18-21: 4.1.29-32, 2.13-16, 49-50, 4.70, 
I3-I-3, 9-12; Epod. 2.68, 5.53, 17.2-4, 40; Serm. 1.1.16-18, 3.7-13, 121, 7.23- 
24, 10.2: 2.6.60; Epp. 1.1.24-25, 93-96: 2.1.46, 2.37-40; Ars. Poet. 37, 269,. 
307-308, etc. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 25 

Further, in the case of initial repetition, the repeated words, 
in the majority of cases, are found in alternate lines 47 . Ana- 
phora in succeeding lines does, however, occur at times, as in 
4.2.11-12 Urit, seu Tyria voluit procedere palla, 

urit seu nivea Candida veste venit. 
In 2.6.20-21, 25-27 we have both methods very near each other : 

spes fovet et fore eras semper ait melius. 
Spes alit agricolas, Spes sulcis credit aratis 48 

Spes etiam valida solatur compede vinctum 

(crura sonant ferro, sed canit inter opus) : 
Spes facilem Nemesim spondet mihi, sed negat 

ilia 49 . 

Propertius exhibits the characteristic repetition found in 
Tibullus; his repetitions almost all take the form of anaphora. 
He probably repeats less than Tibullus, especially in Books 4 
and 5, but he employs a somewhat greater variety of forms 
than we found in Tibullus. Instances of anaphoraic iteration 
are 1.3.1-3; 3-6-3-8; 4.14.13-15; 5.8.68-70. 

In 3.20.41-44 Propertius repeats vidistis at the beginning of 
four successive lines, of course for special emphasis. Examples 
of words repeated within the line, for different effects, are 
1.12.20 Cynthia prima fuit, Cynthia finis erit. 
2.8.7-8 Omnia vertuntur. Certe vertuntur amores : 
vinceris aut vincis, haec in amore rotast 50 . 
Ovid, too, in the Amores, the Fasti, the Heroides, and the 
Tristia, exhibits the fondness for anaphora in alternate lines 
which we have observed in Tibullus and Propertius. Indeed, 
we are now justified in reaching the conclusion that this 
particular type of repetition is characteristic of elegiac verse 
in general 51 . Examples are Fasti 1.67-69 dexter ades. . .dexter 

* T To the instances already cited may be added 1.2.83-85, 5.61, 63, 65: 

48 Here is there is anaphoraic repetition within the line. 

49 Cf. also 1.21. 17-21, 35-36, 49-50, 7.39-41: 2.6.51-53: 3.5.9-I4: 4-1. 
19-20, 13.11-12, etc. 

50 Cf. also 1.3.21-23, 13.13-19; 2.1. 1-5, 3.17-22; 3.14-3-8, 23-24, 15.1, 
16.41, 2541-44; 4.1.63-64, 67-68, 13.48-50, etc. 

51 It must be said that in Martial's elegiac verse this kind of repeti- 

26 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

ades; Tristia 1.3.57-59 

Saepe vale dicto rursus sum multa locutus, 
et quasi discedens oscula summa dedi. 

Saepe eadem mandata dedi meque ipse fefelli. 
I -3-5 I ~53 A! quotiens aliquo dixi properante "Quid urgues? 
vel quo festinas ire, vel unde, vide!" 

A! quotiens certain me sum mentitus habere 

horam . . . 
Amores 2.6.33-35 

Vivit edax vultu, ducensque per aera gyros 
milvus et pluviae graculus auctor aquae; 

vivit et armiferae cornix invisa Minervae . . . 
Compare also Remedia Amoris 265-267. Where special em- 
phasis is desired, the repeated word may be found at the be- 
ginning of two or three successive lines, as in Fasti 2.85-87 

Saepe sequens agnam lupus est a voce retentus, 
saepe avidum fugiens restitit agna lupum: 

saepe canes leporesque umbra cubuere sub una. 
The variation in the metrical treatment of agnarn-lupus and 
of agna-lupum is worthy of note and will be commented upon 
later (p. 74) 52 . Heroides 10.111-115 exhibits a different form 
of the elegiac iteration: the repetend is moved onward to the 
second foot in lines 113 and 115, that the new subjects, apostro- 
phized in the verses, may have the emphasis of position: 

Crudeles somni, quid me terruistis inertem? 
Aut semel aeterna nocte premenda fui. 

Vos quoque crudeles, vend, nimiumque parati, 
flaminaque in lacrimas officiosa meas. 

Dextera crudelis, quae me fratremque necavit. 
The treatment here is artistic and fine. In line in crudeles 
receives the emphasis of position. In 113 and 115, however, 
vos and dextera receive the emphasis, while crudeles and cru- 
delis echo crudeles of in. In vos and dextera, again, ictus and 
word-accent coincide ; finally, in crudeles . . . crudeles . . . cru- 
delis there is identical metrical treatment. 

tion is not so frequent as in Tibullus, Propertius and Ovid. But Mar- 
tial is epigrammatist rather than elegist. There is a quasi-mournful 
effect in this initial repetition of the elegists. Martial is rarely mourn- 
ful, and it is to be noted that in three epigrams which are -sad (namely,. 
5-34, 5-37 and 10.6) there is practically no repetition. 
63 Cf. also Met. 1.556 and Seneca, Medea 943-944. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 27 

In the Metamorphoses Ovid displays almost as much variety 
and skill in repetition as does Vergil (cf. pages 18-21 ) 53 . I can 
cite now only instances of certain rhetorical effects which Ovid 
obtains through repetition. In Met 1.481-482, 

Saepe pater dixit "Generum mihi, filia, debes". 

Saepe pater dixit "Debes mihi, nata, nepotes", 
a passage which gives Peneus's appeal to his daughter, one is 
reminded very strongly of certain effects seen in Poe's verses, 
where a similar partial repetend is employed. In 504-506 the 
iteration nympha . . . mane shows, as nothing else could, the 
growing passion of the god: 

"Nympha, precor, Penei, mane! non insequor hos- 

nympha, mane ! sic agna lupum, sic cerva leonem, 

sic aquilam penna fugiunt trepidante columbae". 
Indeed, the repetition from 480 to 525 is worthy of study, for 
those lines contain an unusually large number of repeated 
words and are rendered thereby more effective in describing 
the god's love for Daphne and his ardent appeal to her as she 
fled from him 54 . In 4.142-143 initial repetition is again em- 
ployed to accentuate a passionate appeal; the answer to the 
appeal is rendered more effective by the putting of Pyramus 
in the first foot in 146. In 12.240-241 the repetition reminds 
us somewhat of Horace Carm. I.35.i5-i6 55 : 

. . . Ardescunt germani caede bimembres, 

certatimque omnes- ore "Arma, arma" loquuntur. 
Absolute despair is well emphasized by the doleful repetition 
of the monosyllables in Tristia 3.3.7-12 (there is here ana- 
phoraic repetition within the lines as well as at the beginning 
of alternate verses) : 

Nee caelum patior, nee aquis adsuevimus istis, 
terraque nescio quo non placet ipsa modo. 

Non domus apta satis, non hie cibus utilis aegro, 
nullus Apollinea qui levet arte malum, 

non qui soletur, non qui labentia tarde 
tempora narrando fallat, amicus adest 5 *. 

" Vergil, however, employs iteration more frequently. 

64 Compare above, page 6, on Aeneid 4.305-330. 

M ad arma cessantes, ad arma concitet. 

M For other instances of repetition see Amores 1.3.15-21, 15.29-30; 

28 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

Seneca, it seems to me, repeats with less idea of the subtle 
effects of repetition than any other Latin author of the Empire. 
He adopts, usually, the simplest forms and sometimes uses them 
in a rather clumsy manner. Rhetorical effects are rare. One is 
surprised, too, at the scarcity of iteration in the choruses. Epi- 
zuexis occurs, probably, more frequently than any other form : 
compare Medea i3-i6 57 

MED. Nunc, nunc adeste, sceleris ultrices deae 


853 MED. Ite, ite, nati matris infaustae genus. 

919-922 MED. luvat, iuvat rapuisse fraternum caput; 
artus iuvat secuisse et arcano patrem 
spoliasse sacro, iuvat . . . 
988-990 IAS. . . . Hue, hue fortis armiferi cohors 

conferte tela, vertite ex imo domum. 
MED. lam iam recepi sceptra, germanum, patrem. 
Seneca depended upon epizeuxis for nearly all the effects he 
attained through repetition. For instance, above in Medea 919- 
922 the repeated iuvat emphasizes Medea's haughty scorn as 
she rehearses Jason's ingratitude. In 988 we hear Jason's 
hurried call to his soldiers ; in 990 we have Medea's cry of tri- 
umph. In 32 epizeuxis effectively emphasizes a piteous appeal : 

Da, da per auras curribus patriis vehi. 

Seneca obtains his finest effect in repetition, to my mind, in 
Medea 137-142 

Quid tamen lason potuit, alieni arbitri 
iurisque factus? Debuit ferro obvium 
offerre pectus. Melius, ah melius, dolor 
furiose, loquere. Si potest, vivat metis, 
ut fuit lason ; si minus, vivat tamen 
memorque nostri muneri parcat meo. 

Perhaps the best example of repetition in the choruses is found 
in Medea 774-781 (in the repetition of the personal and the re- 
lative pronouns) : 

Epist. ex Ponto 1.2.131-133; Fasti 4-91-97: 6.267-269, 295-299; Heroides 
5.29-32: 10.93-94, 109-110; Met. 1.98-99, in, 480-525, 556: 2.284: 3-446: 
5.341-343, 509-600, 625: 6.245-247, 273: 7-108: 8.231-233: 13-607-608: 
15.862-865; Rem. Am. 257-258; Tristia 1.3.85-86, etc. 
"There is virtual anaphora also here in adeste. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 29 

Tibi haec cruenta serta texuntur manu, 

novena quae serpens ligat, 
tibi haec Typhoeus membra quae discors tulit, 

qui regna concussit lovis. 
Vectoris istic perfidi sanguis inest, 

quern Nessus expirans dedit. 
Oetaeus isto cinere defecit rogus, 
qui virus Herculeum bibit. 

In 507-508 we find a rather effective antistrophe, which re- 
minds us of Hamlet 34.9-I3 58 : 

IAS. Ingrata vita est cuius acceptae pudet. 
MED. Retinenda non est cuius acceptae pudet. 
One thinks here of Euripides's excessive fondness for repeti- 
tion, ridiculed by Aristophanes, Frogs 1353-1355, Birds 539, 
Thes. 914-916, etc. 

As examples of Seneca's infelicitous repetition, I cite Medea 
272-273 MED. Profugere cogis? Redde fugienti ratem 

et redde comitem. Fugere cur solam iubes ? 
Why was et put in at the beginning of 273, unless it was to 
throw the ictus for the second time on reddet The effect is 
far from forceful. 426-427 may now be cited : 
. . . Faciet hie faciet dies 
quod nullus umquam taceat 59 . . . 

In Silius Italicus we become still more fully aware than in 
Seneca that the skillful and effective use of repetition was grad- 
ually passing toward its decline. Perhaps the most character- 
istic tendency of this decline is the notable decrease in the num- 
ber of instances of repetition employed for rhetorical effects. 
Monosyllables constitute the repetend in the majority of cases, 
and the device becomes mechanical and colorless. 

Perhaps the most successful instance of a rhetorical effect 
gained by Silius Italicus through repetition is found in 

"QUEEN Hamlet, thou hast thy father much offended. 

HAM. Mother, you have my father much offended. 

QUEEN Come, come, you answer with an idle tongue. 

HAM. Go, go, you question with a wicked tongue. 

69 For other instances of Seneca's repetition compare Medea 7-8, 25, 
55, 107-108, 127, 167, 199-200, 290-293, 400, 447-450, 478-481, 487-488, 
560-561, 649-650, 828-830, 922-923, 938, 943-944, etc. See also his epigram 
De Corsica 1-5 (Poetae Latini Minores, 4. page 55). 

3 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

! 568,57 1 Ite citi, remis velisque impellite puppim 

Ite citi, deflate fidem, murosque ruentes. 
17.652-653 is worthy of notice : 

Salve, invicte parens, non concessure Quirino 

laudibus, ac meritis non concessure Camillo ! 
Silius is rather fond of obtaining emotional force of various 
kinds by repeating an important word twice in the same line, 
with an intervening word. Examples are 
3.116 I felix, i numinibus votisque secundis. 

3.509 Nunc, o ! nunc, socii, dominantis moenia Romae . . . 

10.514-515 Quae postquam adspexit geminatus gaudia ductor 

Sidonius, "Fuge, Varro", inquit, "fuge, Varro su- 

There is mechanical anaphora in 1.656-657 

Omnis Hiber, omnis rapidis fera Gallia turmis, 

omnis 60 ab aestifero sitiens Libya imminet axe. 
Typical instances of monosyllabic iteration are 
1.185-187 Hinc studia accendit patriae virtutis imago, 

hinc fama in populos iurati didita belli, 

hinc virides ausis anni fervorque decorus. 
1.465 praecipiti dant tela viam, dant signa, virique. 

1.561 hinc puer invalidique senes, hinc femina ferre 

certat opem . . . 

An example of inadvertent repetition is 
1.517-519 horrida labentis perfunditur arma cruore. 

Ilicet ingenti casu turbata iuventus 

procurrit : nota arma viri corpusque superbo 

victori spoliare negant. 
In 3.425-426 the repetition seems inartistic: 

. . . letique Deus (si credere fas est), 

causa fuit leti miserae deus . . . 61 

There is one type of repetition in Persius that may be called 
characteristic. We saw it in Plautus and Terence 62 ; after them 
the instances of its occurrence are rare until Persius revives it, 
in modified form, in which he himself carries on both sides of 
the dialogue, to suit his dramatic satire. I refer to the interrog- 

"For the metrical treatment of omnis see p. 60. 
"For repetition in general in Silius compare also 1.53, 100-101, 195,. 
242-243, 342-344, 392-394, 658-663; 15-580-583, etc. 
63 See pp. 8-9, 11-12. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 31 

ative repetition by a second (imaginary) character of a word or 
phrase employed by the first. Of the opposite form due to 
the lack of a word for 'yes' Persius makes good use : no ex- 
amples are needed. We may compare, for the other character- 
istic type, 
1.86-87 . . . doctas posuisse figuras 

laudatur, bellum hoc! Hoc bellum? An, Romule, 

ceves ? 

6.68-69 Quid reliquum est? Reliquum? Nunc, nunc im- 
pensius ungue, 

ungue, puer, caules 63 ! 
5.66-67 (this passage shows a slight variation) : 

Cras hoc fiet idem. Cras fiet ? Quid ? quasi magnum 

nempe diem donas ! 

5.83-87 also should be noted. In 1.1-3 both forms are, in ef- 
fect, combined: 

O curas hominum ! O quantum est in rebus inane 64 ! 

Quis leget haec ? Min' tu istud ais ? Nemo hercule ! 

vel duo, vel nemo . . . 

Persius occasionally employs epizeuxis with considerable ef- 
fectiveness, for example in 1.120; i.m 

Nil moror. Euge ! omnes omnes bene mirae eritis 

Best of all is 3.41-42 

purpureas subter cervices terruit, imus, 

imus praecipites, quam si sibi dicat . . . 

Two characteristic examples of monosyllabic iteration in Per- 
sius are 
2.49-50 intendit: lam crescit ager, iam crescit ovile, 

iam dabitur, iam, iam! 
6.78-79 . . . Feci ; iam triplex, iam mihi quarto, 

iam deciens redit in rugam : depunge, ubi sistam ? 
Persius employs a partial refrain, in 
1.45-46 non ego, cum scribo, si forte quid aptius exit 

quando hoc rara avis est si quid tamen aptius 
exit . 

63 Cf. p. 9. 

M Cf . Lucilius 9. 

32 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

A rather unusual and not altogether successful antistrophe 
occurs in 2.9-10 

ilia sibi introrsum et sub lingua murmurat: "O si 

ebulliat patruus, praeclarum funus !" et: "O si . . ." 65 
In 2.53-55, 59 we find what is probably an instance of inadver- 
tent and consequently inartistic repetition : 

auro dona feram, sudes et pectore laevo 

excutiat laetari praetrepidum cor. 

Hinc illud subiit, auro sacras quod ovato 

Aurum vasa Numae Saturniaque impulit aera . . . 
In 3.83-84 we find a piling up of words which reminds us of 
certain passages in Ennius 66 : 

. . . gigni 

de nihilo nihilum, in nihilum nil posse reverti 67 . 
If, in studying Lucan, we follow the views of Professor 
Heitland 68 , as I think we must, we shall say without hesitation 
that Lucan's characteristic type of iteration is that which we 
have called inartistic or careless. Of the many examples a few 
may be cited. 
1.25,27 urbibus Italiae lapsisque ingentia muris 

rarus et antiquis habitator in urbibus errat. 

6.257-259 armis, Scaeva, tuis, felix hoc nomine famae, 
si tibi durus Hiber aut si tibi terga dedisset 
Cantaber exiguis aut longis Teutonus armis 69 . 

8.194-196 (in which Professor Haskins notes only dedit - 

dedit) : 

torsit et in laevum puppim dedit, utque secaret 
quas Samiae cautes et quas Chios asperat undas, 
hos dedit in proram, tenet hos in puppe rudentes. 

Very frequently Lucan repeats words in the same position in 

65 One is reminded slightly of Horace, Epp. 1.1.64-65. 

66 See p. 11. 

67 For an example of a humorous effect obtained by Persius through 
repetition see 5.132-133. For repetition in general in Persius compare 
1.26-27, 36-39, 49-55J 2.22-40, 64-68; 3.15, 23, 65-69, 88-89; 5-8, 79-8i; 


68 See above, page 2. 

"Professor Haskins notes only the awkward repetition armis-artnis. 
si tibi - si tibi in 258, however, is very far from inartistic. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 33 

the line. In many cases these repeated words are clearly care- 
less, as in 
7.512-514 inde faces et saxa volant spatioque solutae 

aeris et calido liquefactae pondere glandes. 

Tune et Ituraei Medique Arabesque soluti 70 . . . 
In other cases, however, Lucan evidently repeats words in the 
same position in the line for emphasis, and occasionally, also 
for rhetorical effects of various sorts. 
2.212,216 Praecipites haesere rates, et strage cruenta 

praecipitique ruens Tiberina in flumina rivo. 

seu tonitrus ac tela lovis praesaga notavit, 

solis in obscuro pugnam pallore notavit. 

augure mens hominum caeli nova signa notasset. 
10.312,314 qua dirimunt Arabum populis Aegyptia rura 

qua dirimunt nostrum rubro commercia ponto 71 . 
In Martial we find repetition so clever and effective that we 
are reminded of the perfection of the device in the hands of 
Vergil and Horace. Martial seldom strives for sonorous and 
beautiful effects, such as are found in the Aeneid, or for the 
artistic verse structure, the metrical grace, so often obtained by 
Horace through iteration ; but a curiosa felicitas iterandi is his. 
He places his repetend in most cases two or more words so 
that it derives a peculiar emphasis and effectiveness both from 
position and repetition. Again in the metrical treatment of 
repeated words he is most skilful. One passage in which Mar- 
tial's characteristic cleverness in the use of repetition may be 
observed is Lib. Epig. 29.9-12 

Misit utrique rudes et palmas Caesar utrique : 
hoc pretium virtus ingeniosa tulit. 

Contigit hoc nullo nisi te sub principe, Caesar : 
cum duo pugnarent victor uterque fuit. 

70 Cf. also 2.677, 680; 3.647, 650, 654; 4.448, 450; 5.546, 548. 

"Compare 7-554-557 for a rather unusual passage, filled with repeti- 
tion, good and bad. See also 1.510-513; 5-593-596; 7.i57-i6o; 9-953-9545 
10.213-296 (traductio), 309-310, 516-519, etc. 

34 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

But it can nowhere be seen to better advantage than in his two- 
line and four-line epigrams. Fine instances are 

1.9 Bellus homo et magnus vis idem, Cotta, videri: 

sed qui bellus homo est, Cotta, pusillus homo est. 
1.47 Nuper erat medicus, nunc est vispillo Diaulus : 

quod vispillo facit, fecerat et medicus. 
1.75 Dimidium donare Lino quam credere totum 

qui mavult, mavult perdere dimidium. 

Other good examples are 1.79;; 2.19; 2.20; 2.38; 2.58; 
3.61; 5.29; 7.43; 8.5; 9.88; 10.43; "48; 11.92; 12.39; 12.80. 
It will be at once observed that Martial depends almost entirely 
upon repetition to produce the effect which he desires in these 
two-line epigrams. One of the very best is 1.32 

Non amo te, Sabidi, nee possum dicere quare : 

hoc tantum possum dicere : non amo te 72 . 
In these shorter poems, again, the very characteristic handling 
of proper names should be observed. Martial frequently re- 
peats them just before the last word in the line, as in 7.3. 
This is especially true when vocatives are employed, as in 

7.43 Primum est ut praestes, si quid te, Cinna, rogabo; 

illud deinde sequens, ut cito, Cinna, neges. 
Diligo praestantem ; non odi, Cinna, negantem : 
sed tu nee praestas, nee cito, Cinna, negas. 
There are, however, many variations, and vocative proper 
names may be found in any foot of the line. Examples of 
various sorts are 

11.92 Mentitur qui te vitiosum, Zoile, dicit: 

non vitiosus homo es, Zoile, sed vitium. 
8.5 Dum donas, Macer, anulos puellis, 

desisti, Macer, anulos habere. 
10.89.1,5-6 luno labor, Polyclite, tuus et gloria felix, 

lunonem, Polyclite, suam nisi frater amaret, 

lunonem poterat frater amare tuam. 
4.69 Tu Setina quidem semper vel Massica ponis, 
Papyle, sed rumor tarn bona vina negat: 

diceris hac factus caelebs quater esse lagona: 
nee puto nee credo, Papyle, nee sitio. 

"For imitations of 1.32 in both form and thought, see Professor 
Post's notes. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 35 

The opposite arrangement to that in 4.69 is found in 8.51.17-19 
Imbuat egregium digno mihi nectare munus 

non grege de domini, sed tua, Ceste, manus; 
Ceste, decus mensae, misce Setina 73 . . . 
Anaphora is very common in Martial ; it is found chiefly in 
his hendecasyllabic verses (in this tendency his imitation 74 of 
Catullus is clearly seen). Perhaps the most remarkable in- 
stance is 5.24, in which each of the 15 lines begin with Hermes. 
Other examples are 4.39.3-5 (solus solus solus), and 10.35. 
11-12 (nullam nullam). An example of the partial refrain 
occurs in 2.18.2,4,6 in the triple occurrence of iam sumus ergo 
pares. In the twelve lines of 9.97 there are anaphora, epanas- 
strophe or anadiplosis (in the form of epiploce 75 ), antistrophe, 
epanalepsis 76 , and a fine epanadiplosis (in the first and last 
lines) : 

Rumpitur invidia quidam, carissime luli, 
quod me Roma legit, rumpitur invidia, 
rumpitur invidia, quod turba semper in omni 

monstramur digito, rumpitur invidia. 
Rumpitur invidia, tribuit quod Caesar uterque 

ius mihi natorum, rumpitur invidia. 
Rumpitur invidia, quod rus mihi dulce sub urbe est 

parvaque in urbe domus, rumpitur invidia. 
Rumpitur invidia, quod sum iucundus amicis, 

quod conviva frequens, rumpitur invidia. 
Rumpitur invidia, quod amamur quodque probamur : 
rumpatur, quisquis rumpitur invidia 77 . 

A similar piling up of words, though in entirely different forms, 
is seen in 2.7 and 2.41.1-5. 

73 For other examples compare pp. 71, 73, etc. See also 1.33; 1.117. 
1-2, 5, 18; 2.19; 2.43.1, 16; 2.58; 3.50,2, 10; 3.63.1, 13-14; 5.29; 5-58; 
6.35.2, 6; 10.43. 

M On this point see e.g. Professor Post's edition of Martial, p. xxx ; 
Paukstadt, De Martialis Catulli Imitatore (Halle, 1876), passim. 

"Recurring anadiplosis. See page 16, note 25. 

78 1. e. the resumption or repetition of a word or clause after other 
words or clauses have intervened usually to complete the meaning. 

"For other instances of Martial's repetition in general see Lib. 
Epig. 29.1; 1.41.7-15; 1.109.1-5; 1.109.19-23; 2.5.7-8; 2.90.9-10; 475.1; 

6-554-5; 6.63; 7.92; 8.24.6; 8.50.20; 8.55.23-24; 946; IO.35.I-4; IO.IOIJ 

ii. 18.1-3; 11.80; 12.67. 

36 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

In Juvenal we become conscious immediately, once more, of 
the downward tendency in the use of repetition (see above, 
pp. 28-29) ; in spite of occasional flashes of artistry it is 
usually colorless and often rather clumsy. Monosyllables 
constitute the repetend in a large number of cases, and clean- 
cut rhetorical effects are rare. 

This characteristic monosyllabic iteration occurs in 
3.26-27 dum nova canities, dum prima et recta senectus, 

dum superest Lachesi quod torqueat . . . 
7.190-194 (et) . . . felix et pulcher et acer, 

felix et sapiens et nobilis et generosus, 

appositam nigrae lunam subtexit alutae; 

felix orator quoque maximus et iaculator, 

et, si perfrixit, cantat bene . . . 

The repetition of felix, however, in this passage is very effec- 
tive, forming, as it does, a well-arranged and metrically varied 
anaphora. In 5.112-113 there is a fine epizeuxis: 

poscimus, ut cenes civiliter ; hoc face et esto, 

esto, ut nunc multi, dives tibi, pauper amicis. 
An effective instance of epanalepsis (see page 35, note 76) is 
8.170-172 . . . praestare Neronem 

securum valet haec aetas. Mitte Ostia, Caesar, 

mitte, sed in magna legatum quaere popina. 
A humorous and effective antistrophe is found in 5.135-136, 
portraying the attentions that would be showered on the now 
neglected Trebius if he were suddenly to become a millionaire : 

Da Trebio! Pone ad Trebium! vis f rater ab ipsis 

ilibus ? 
7.197-198 contains an interesting antimetabole 78 : 

Si Fortuna volet, fies de rhetore consul ; 

si volet haec eadem, fies de consule rhetor. 
Eager appeal 79 is well emphasized by repetition in 

10.188 "Da spatium vitae, multos da, luppiter, annos!" 
In 7.144-147 there is a rather unusual, and fairly effective 
treatment of a proper name: 

. . . atque ideo pluris quam Callus agebat, 

quam Basilus. Rara in tenui facundia panno. 

Quando licet Basilo flentem producere matrem? 

Quis bene dicentem Basilum ferat? . . . 

78 See above, page 17, note 26. 

Compare 7.156-158 for an example of surprise reinforced by repeti- 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 37 

We turn now to examples of colorless and inartistic repe- 
tition. Quite frequently we find line antistrophae which are 
far from pleasing, as in 
1.87-89 Et quando uberior vitiorum copia? Quando 

maior avaritiae patuit sinus? Alea quando 

hos animos? 
3.166-167 . . . magno hospitium miserabile, magno 

servorum ventres, et frugi cenula magno. 
4'35-36 is somewhat similar 80 . 

. . . Narrate, puellae 

Pierides. Prosit mihi vos dixisse puellas ! 
There is infelicitous line anaphora in 
8.4-7 et Curios iam dimidios umerosque minorem 

[Corvinum et Galbam auriculis nasoque carentem? 

Quis fructus, generis tabula iactare capaci] 

Corvinum, posthac multa contingere virga? 
Instances of inartistic iteration within the lines are 
8.269-271 Malo pater tibi sit Thersites, dummodo tu sis 

Aeacidae similis Vulcaniaque arma capessas, 

quam te Thersitae similem producat Achilles. 

ut rebus laetis par sit mensura malorum ? 

et de mensura ius dicere, vasa minora 
frangere 81 . . . 

In the majority of cases, monosyllables constitute Statius's 
repetend. This tendency, first noticed in Silius Italicus 82 , then 
again in Juvenal, is still more marked in the Silvae. Yet 
there are many instances of iteration in Statius in which mono- 
syllables are not employed, and where there is evidence of 
real appreciation on the part of the poet of the possibilities 
inherent in the device 83 . Examples are 

80 Compare also 10.196-197. But the repetition of nescio in 13.33-34 i* 

81 For other examples of Juvenal's repetition see 1.22-26, 51-53, 125- 
J 26; 3.53, 158, 190-192, 211, 230; 5-49-51, 90-91, 114, 133-134; 7.50-51, 
84-85, 90-91, 94-95, 134-135, 223; 8.147-151, 159-160, 213-214, 243-244; 
10.7, 122, 173-176; 11.63, 125; 12.111; 13.67-69; 14.71-72, 294; 16.43-44, 

82 See p. 29. 

83 For one especially effective example see Silvae 1.2.197-198. 

38 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

I - 2 -33~34 Pone o dulcis suspiria vates, 
pone: . . . 

1. 2.22 1 hie movet Ortygia, movet hie rapida agmina Nysa. 

A fine effect is gained by the anaphoraic repetition of cedant 

in 1.3-83-85, 88-89 

cedant Telegoni, cedant Laurentia Turni 
iugera Lucrinaeque domus litusque cruenti 
Antiphatae, cedant vitreae iuga perfida Circes 

cedant, quae te iam solibus artis 

avia nimbosa revocabunt litora bruma. 
Good also is 1.4.123-124 

Nectite nunc laetae candentia fila, sorores, 

nectite ! 

Statius is rarely careless or inartistic in his repetition. His 
monosyllabic iteration, however, is perfunctory and colorless. 
1.2.43-45 Nee si Dardania pastor temerarius Ida 

sedisses, haec dona forent, nee si alma per auras 

te . . . veheret . . . 

1.2.267 qui leges, qui castra regant, qui carmina ludant. 
1.6.93-97 quis spectacula, quis iocos licentis, 

quis convivia, quis dapes inemptas, 

largi flumina quis canat Lyaei ? 

Iam iam deficio tuoque Baccho 

. . . trahor 84 . . . 

Since the Pervigilium Veneris was written at a time when 
the artistic use of repetition was vanishing, we are doubly im j 
pressed by the consummate skill with which the writer of this 
poem has introduced his repetitions. The poem opens with a 
beautiful verse set off by an effective epanadiplosis, which is 
repeated as a refrain in 8,12,36,48,57,62,75,80,93 

Cras amet qui numquam amavit quique amavit eras 

In 2-3 we find 

Ver novum, ver iam canorum, ver renactus orbis est ! 

Vere concordant amores, vere nubunt alites. 
Lines remarkable for effective repetition are 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 


Ipsa Nymphas diva luco iussit ire myrteo : 

84 Cf. also i. 1.11-13, 79-81, 2.56-57, 148-149, 183, 197-198, 217-218, 233- 
234, 3.29-30, 57-59, 99-104, 5-3-4, 48-49, 6.46-47, 76-8i, etc. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 39 

Ite, Nymphae; posuit arma, feriatus est Amor; 
iussus est inermis ire, nudus ire iussus est, 

sed tamen, Nymphae, cavete, quod Cupido pulcher 

totus est in armis idem quando nudus est Amor. 
In 53-56 we may note the fine emphasis and balance obtained 
by the repetition of puellac within 53, the movement imparted 
to 54 by the repeated quaeque, and, finally, the anaphora 85 in 


Ruris hie erunt puellae vel puellae fontium 

quaeque silvas quaeque lucos quaeque montes in- 

lussit omnes adsidere pueri mater alitis, 

iussit at nudo puellas nil Amori credere. 

Lines 89-92 provide an artistic bit of identical metrical treat- 
ment (in tacemus tacendo tacerent). The anaphora quando 
quando, followed by perdidi perdidit, adds to the general 
effectiveness : 

Ilia cantat : nos tacemus ? quando ver venit meum ? 

Quando faciam uti chelidon vel tacere desinam? 

Perdidi Musam tacendo nee me Phoebus respicit. 

Sic Amyclas cum tacerent perdidit silentium. 
That monosyllables may be so repeated as to be a material aid 
to the spirit and movement of the line, we see from 33 

Neu quid arcu neu sagitta neu quid igne laederet. 
45 Nee Ceres nee Bacchus absunt nee poetarum deus 86 . 

Ausonius confines his repetition almost entirely to iteration 
of monosyllables. He rarely obtains a real rhetorical effect 
through repetition, and the device in his hands continues to 
decrease in value and effectiveness. Three examples of fairly 
good, though mechanical, iteration will be cited first. 
Mosella 196-197 

annumerat virides derisus navita vites, 

navita caudiceo fluitans super aequora lembo. 
355-356 Sura tuas properat non degener ire sub undas, 

85 Cf. also 40-41, 51-52. 

88 For other examples of iteration in this poem see 13-15, 37-38, 44, 

49-52, 76-79, etc. 

40 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

Sura interceptis tibi gratificata fluentis. 

431 Dives aquis, dives Nymphis, largitor utrique . . , 

An example of careless iteration is seen in 
258,262,265 aura crepat, motoque assibilat acre ventus 

segnis anhelantis vitam consumit in auris. 

nee coeunt rictus :haustas sed hiatibus auras. 
Lines 477-483 contain good anaphorae (te te, etc.), but the 
effectiveness is considerably lessened by the inartistic and ap- 
parently unconscious iteration in ripis ripae: 

Te fontes vivique lacus, te caerula noscent 
flumina, te veteres pagorum gloria luci : 
te Druna, te sparsis incerta Druentia ripis, 
Alpinique colent fluvii, duplicemque per orbem 
qui meat et dextrae Rhodanus dat nomina ripae. 
Te stagnis ego caeruleis, magnumque sonoris 
amnibus, aequoreae te commendabo Garumnae. 
I quote now a typical example of the colorless monosyllabic 
repetition which seems to be so characteristic of the later 
writers : 

321-324 Haec est natura sublimis in aggere saxi, 
haec procurrentis fundata crepidine ripae, 
haec refugit captumque sinu sibi vindicat amnem. 
Ilia tenens collem, qui plurimus imminet amni 87 . . . 
Anaphora is the characteristic form of repetition in the 
poems of Claudian. There is a small decrease in the number 
of instances of monosyllabic iteration. Claudian, indeed, em- 
ploys repetition more successfully than any other of the later 
writers, with the exception of Martial and the author of the 
Pervigilium Veneris. Examples are De Raptu Proserpinae 

Mars clipeo melior, Phoebus praestantior arcu. 
Mars donat Rhodopen, Phoebus largitur Amyclas 
et Delon Clariosque lares. 
1.191-192 Heu quotiens praesaga mali violavit oborto 

rore genas ! Quotiens oculos ad tecta retorsit. 
2.8i.-83 Quidquid turiferis spirat Panchaia silvis, 

quidquid odoratus longe blanditur Hydaspes, 
quidquid ab extremis ales longaevus harenis. 

87 For other examples of repetition in Ausonius see Mosella 27-28, 29- 
32, 106-164, 359-36i, 417-418, 426, 461-463, etc. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 41 

Rather effective intralinear repetition is found in De Quarto 

Consulatu Honorii Augusti 

349-350 nunc eques in medias equitum te consere turmas, 

nunc pedes assistas pediti .... 

Perhaps Claudian's finest line, so far as successful repetition 
is concerned, is In Eutropium Lib. II Praef. 59 

Emeritum suspende sagum, suspende pharetram. 
It must be said, however, that Claudian is very little superior to 
his predecessors in his treatment of monosyllables, as the 
following examples show: Epithalamium Dictum Paladio et 
Celerinae 60-63 

convenere domus et qui lectissimus orbi 

sanguis erat. Rubris quae fluctibus insula latrat, 

quis locus Aethiopum, quae sic impervia famae 

secessit regio, quo non rumore secundo . . . 
In Rufinum 2.95-97 dilecta his pignora certe, 

hie domus, hie thalamis primum genialibus omen, 

hie tibi felices erexit regia taedas 88 . 

As in Claudian, so in Prudentius, anaphora is found more 
frequently than any other form of repetition. He is rather 
mechanical, therefore (since anaphora is, of all forms of iter- 
ation, the most mechanical), in his use of repeated words, but 
not infrequently obtains good results. Monosyllables are re- 
peated probably less than in Claudian. I quote only five ex- 
amples from Prudentius (all but one illustrate his use of ana- 
phora) : Hymnus ante Sompnum 5-8 
O Trinitatis huius 

vis una, lumen unum, 

Deus ex Deo perennis, 

Deus ex utroque missus 89 . . . 
Hymnus ad Incensum Lucernae 151-152 

lucem, qua tribuis nil pretiosius, 

lucem, qua reliqua praemia cernimus. 

88 Compare also for monosyllabic repetition, De Quarto Con. Hon. 
Aug. 492-501 ; In Rufinum 1.230-232. For other examples of repetition 
in Claudian see De Bello Gildonico 266-267, 410-413; De Nuptiis 
Honorii Augusti et Mariae 219-220, 254-255 ; De Tertio Consulatu Hon. 
Aug. 204-205; De Quarto Con. Hon. Aug. 120-121, 257-259, 530-531, 
603-604; De Raptu Pros. 1.136-137; In Eutropium II Praef. 17, 47-48; 
In Rufinum 2.26-28, 64-66, 92, 240-241; Fescennina 45-46, 131-132; etc. 

"Note the antistrophe in line 6. 

42 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

Hymnus Omni Hora 22-23 

Psallat altitude caeli, psallite omnes angeli, 
quidquid est virtutis usquam psallat in laudem Dei. 
82-83 Solve vocem mens sonoram, solve linguam mobilem, 

die tropaeum passionis, die triumphalem crucem. 
Hymnus ad Incensum Lucernae 153-154 gives a virtual ana- 
phora, followed by a rather effective anadiplosis; 
Tu lux vera oculis, lux quoque sensibus, 
intus tu speculum, tu speculum foris 90 . 

The repetition in the Apotheosis is remarkable throughout. 
Deus, Christus, Pater, Verbum, and kindred words are re- 
peated times innumerable all the way through the poem, in 
anaphoraic forms, in a most interesting way. Lack of space 
forbids citation from it here. 

We have now followed the device of repetition in Latin over 
a period extending, approximately, from 250 B.C. to 400 A.D., 
and have examined the works of twenty-two poets, together 
with one anonymous poem. It is clear that every Roman poet 
of any consequence consciously employs repetition more or 
less frequently, as a factor in his style; it is equally clear that 
success in the handling of repetition varies greatly in the dif- 
ferent poems, and that with the general decline of poetic power 
and workmanship that marks the Silver Age and the days that 
succeeded it goes also a decline in the power to handle repeti- 
tion with skill and effectiveness. 

90 Cf. also Hymnus Matutinus 33-36, etc. For other examples of 
repetition in Prudentius see Apotheosis 845-848 ; Hymnus Omni Hora 
88-89, 109; Passio Hippolyti Martyris 12-15, 239-245; Passio Agnetis- 
Virginis 16-17; Romani Martyris Supplicium 294-309 (pronoun tra- 



The purpose of this chapter is to ascertain, if possible, the 
general rules and principles which guided the Latin poets in 
determining the metrical treatment of repeated words. 

Let us first inquire what is the natural thing, from the 
standpoint of metrics, for a writer to do with a repeated word; 
shall he so place it that it shall receive similar metrical treat- 
ment, or shall he give it variant treatment? Clearly, a word 
repeated in a line or in adjacent lines with the same metrical 
value will be weightier than one repeated with variant metrical 
treatment. In the latter case, the attention is diverted by the 
changed ictus; in the former it is fixed more firmly upon the 
repeated word. On the other hand, we have to reckon with 
a craving, sometimes conscious, sometimes unconscious, for 
variety. In Latin word-order, for instance, that tendency dis- 
plays itself in the automatic employment of chiasmus. Again, 
just because of the effectiveness of repetition with identical 
treatment, the poet must beware of carrying such repetition too 
far. We saw, in Chapter I, that the editors who have ob- 
served repetition in Latin at all confine their remarks, in the 
main, to passages in which repeated words receive different 
metrical treatment. That is strange, first, because of the 
numerous examples of identical treatment in which notable 
effects are produced 1 (in many of these instances, perhaps in 
a majority of them, this identical treatment could have been 
avoided), and, secondly, because of the existence of a large 

1 Compare e.g. Aeneid 3.566-567; Martial 1.41.7-15; Horace, Carm. 
4.13.10-12; 2.9.1, 9, 17; Aeneid 5.176; Catullus 112, Aeneid 1.222; 
Horace, Carm. 1.15. 9-10; Catullus 8.11-12, 19; Horace, Carm. 1.2.21 
24; 2.4.2-5; Prudentius, Hymnus Omni Hora 22-23; Catullus 64.285- 
286; Plautus, Most. 561-612, etc. 

44 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

number of words which, if repeated at all, could receive only 
identical treatment (for instance, words which make a dactyl 
or fit readily into a dactyl in hexameter verse). Since repe- 
tition is never an absolute prerequisite to effective writing, 
the transparent willingness, nay, eagerness, of the poets to 
repeat such words 2 , is itself a priori ground against any such 
contention as Mr. Page seems to make 3 , that the accent is by 
preference changed in repetition ; rather is it proof of a great 
liking for identical treatment. 

A careful study of the examples I have collected from the 
Latin poets considered in Chapter II leads me to submit the 
following as a general rule for the metrical treatment of 
words repeated, letter for letter or with only slight varia- 
tions, in the same or closely adjacent verses : wherever the 
poet desires to secure a special effect of emphasis or clear-* 
ness or to produce some rhetorical effect (whether emotional, 
as in emphasizing or reinforcing the expression of joy, pathos, 
surprise, anger, etc., or formal, as in examples of anaphora, an- 
tistrophe, etc.), in a word, in the more effective instances of 
repetition, the repeated word receives identical metrical treat- 
ment. If no special effect is desired, variant treatment is 
found most frequently 4 . Variant treatment, again, may result 
from sheer love of variety, from metrical exigency, from care- 
lessness, or from the sacrifice of identical treatment in the 
interest of some other effect which seems to the poet at the 
moment more desirable 5 . Identical metrical treatment, then, 

2 Cf. e.g. Horace, Carm. 4.13.1-2; A. P. 269; Aeneid 3-639-640; Bu- 
colics 3.85-86; Catullus 62.28; 58.1-2; Bucolics 2.65, 69; Persius 2.22- 
23, 29, 40; Martial 2.58; 7.3.1-2; Statius, Silvae 1.2.197-198; Bucolics 
1.3-4, etc. 

3 See above, p. 2. 

* There are a great many exceptions, but the rule holds good in the 
vast majority of cases. I shall endeavor to cite in this chapter the 
best examples of the respective phenomena, and therefore some pas- 
sages may occur which have been quoted before. Furthermore, in 
some cases, the same passage contains good examples of the metrical 
treatment of, say, a noun and a verb; such passages will occur here 
more than once. 

5 See below, page 45, and compare the comment on Catullus 94.1 on 
page 63. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 45 

is to be regarded as characteristic of the best poetic usage, as 
normal in the most effective writing. We thus reach a con- 
clusion opposite to that set forth in terms by Mr. Page, and by 
implication in the notes of other editors. It may be noted also 
that my rule differs considerably from that of Professor 
Knapp (see above, page 4). Furthermore, examples are oc- 
casionally found of, say, pronominal or adjectival iteration 
where the variant treatment of the repeated word, by diverting 
the attention from the word itself, serves to aid in the em- 
phasis imparted to the leading word of the clause. A note- 
worthy instance of this phenomenon is Aeneid 3.503-504 
(p. 59 ) 6 . Likewise, in the case of monosyllabic words not in 
themselves emphatic or weighty, there is some leaning toward 
variant treatment (see pp. 48 ff.) 7 . In cases of repetition which 
take the form of epizeuxis, variant metrical treatment is almost 
inevitable; see below, pages 55-56. Again, the poets exhibit 
many instances of variant treatment, in which identical treat- 
ment would have been more effective. But here, too, we must 
reckon with the poet's care not to overwork and thereby cheap- 
en what he realized was a most serviceable device for directing 
attention emphatically to feelings and emotions of various 
kinds. There are, therefore, cases where our judgment in- 
clines to brand as careless and inartistic repetitions which may, 
in fact, have been worked out by the poet with the greatest 
care. It should be noted, also, that desire for juxtaposition or 
chiasmus sometimes leads to variant treatment as well as to 

6 Cf . also Juvenal 11.125. 

7 In Seneca, Medea 167 (p. 74) there is a very unusual phenom- 
enon one which I have seen nowhere else. By means of variant 
treatment the second rex receives a powerful emphasis. 

Compare e.g. Aeneid 2.108-111; Horace, Carm. 1.2.2-6; Plautus, 
Most. 181; Aeneid 4.3; Martial 2.7; Horace, Carm. 1.2.2-6; 3.5.18, 21- 
22; Lucretius 6.2-5; Horace Serm. 1.7.23-24; Aeneid 6.46; Aeneid 
1.200-201, 204, 234-235: 2.97-98, 108-110, 306: 3.490, 500, 539-540, 708- 
710: 4.25-26, 141, 147, 153, 109-200, 320-321, 413, 437, 548, 566-567, 657, 
676-679: 6.625, 828-829, 865, 872; Horace, Carm. 1.5.10; Persius 5.1-2; 
Terence, Andria 382; Propertius 2.8.7. For special considerations at 
work here at times see below, page 48, note 15. 

46 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

identical treatment. Catullus 94.1 is an example in point. The 
noun mentula receives identical treatment, while the treatment 
of moechatur is varied 8 . 

There is one other type of variant treatment which should 
be noted, namely, that which is attended by alterations in 
vowel quantity : see below, pages 78-79. 

In view of the fondness of the poets for repeating deliber- 
ately with identical metrical treatment words which, by reason 
of the metrical value of the word, they were free to employ 
with variant metrical treatment, in view, too, of their fondness 
for employing twice or more in close proximity words to which 
they were compelled to accord identical metrical treatment, if 
they repeated them at all, it is not surprising that similar treat- 
ment occurs more frequently than variant treatment. It should 
be remarked, however, that, in the case of words which re- 
quire identical treatment, the effectiveness of repetition is often 
not so marked as it is in passages where the poet, though free 
to repeat words with variant treatment, deliberately employs 
identical metrical treatment. Furthermore, the effectiveness 
of identical metrical treatment may be impaired when that 
treatment is the result of the poet's striving after juxtaposi- 
tion, chiasmus or the like 9 . 

When a word occurs three times in closely connected lines, 
identical and variant treatment are usually combined 10 ; har- 
mony and variety are thus simultaneously obtained. If, how- 

8 Compare also Martial 1.79.1; 8.24.6; Persius 1.86-87. Ovid, Heroides 
5.29-32 is interesting, though Paris - Paris really forms antimetabole 
rather than chiasmus. Cf. also Horace Serm. 1.1.17-18. 

9 Cf. e.g. Martial 1.76; Catullus 64.285-286; 78.3-4; 94- 1 ', Aeneid 
3.159-160; Ovid, Met. 2.284: 6.273; Persius 3.41-42. It will be seen 
that in some of these passages the juxtaposition works no detriment 
to the repetition. In Catullus 94.1 mentula could receive no other 
treatment, and its iteration within the line is made possible by chias- 

10 Compare e.g. pp. 49-51, passim; Ovid, Met. 6.245-247; Catullus 78.3- 
4; Silius Italicus 1.656-657; Juvenal 7.190-193; Persius 3.83-84; Ae- 
neid 2.176-185, 189-192: 4.138-139, 600-601: 6.787-789; Horace, Epp. 
2.1.46, 60-61; Ovid, Fasti 6.295-299; Heroides 10.109-110; Martial 10.101 ;. 
Lucan, Phar. 3.157-158; Juvenal 1.87-88: 3.166-167: 8.213-214. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 47 

ever, special emphasis or some emotional effect is sought, the 
word most frequently receives identical metrical treatment 
throughout and appears in the same position in the successive 
lines; in such cases anaphora or antistrophe is frequent (see 
below, pages 49-50) 11 . 

No rule can be laid down for metrical treatment where a 
word is repeated more than three times in a given passage. All 
sorts of variations are possible and many of the poets ex- 
ercise considerable ingenuity in the development and handling 
of them 12 . 

There is one more phenomenon which should be noted at this 
point. I refer to the repetition of more than one word in a 
given passage. No rule can be laid down which will cover 
enough cases to justify it. I incline to think that the more 
usual treatment here is, in the case of, say, two pairs of words, 
to give one identical, the other variant, treatment 13 , though this 
form is of little greater frequency than some of its many pos- 
sible variations 1 *. 

11 Compare e.g. Claudian, De TV Con. Hon. Aug. 530-531 ; Plautus, 
Most. 264; Catullus 8.11-12, 19: 51.13-16: 64.39-41: 95.1-6; Bucolics 
2.65, 69; Statius, Silvae 1.2.197-198; Juvenal 7.144-147; Horace, Carm. 
1.12.57-60, 15.9-10: 2.9.1, 9, 17, 16.1-8; Ep>p. 1.1.23-25; Lucan, Phar. 
3.647-654: 7.197-203; Aeneid 3.523-524: 6.661-664: 7.92, 94, 96, 103; 
Persius 2.64-66; Martial 1.117.1, 5, 8: 3.63.1, 13-14: 4-39-3-5: 6.55.4-5; 
Juvenal 10.196-197; Claudian, De Raptu Pros. 2.81-83; Tibullus 1.5.61- 
65; Propertius 3.14.3-7; Ovid, Fasti 2.85-87: 6.267-269; Heroides 10. 
111-115; Met. 4.142-146: 5.341-343: 8.231-233. 

"Compare e.g. Martial 1.41.7-15; Ovid, Met. 6.245-247; Martial 2.7: 
12.39: 1.18; 5.79-81; Plautus, Most. 561-612 (partly quoted on p. 76); 
Horace, Carm., 5, 9, 13, 17, 31.1-7, 35-5-6, g, 17, 21 : 4.1.29-32, 13.17- 
20, 14.33-34, 41-42, 45-47, 49, 51 ; Serm. 1.3.7-13; Vergil, Aeneid 2.150-151 ; 
Bucolics 3.56-57, 60; Lucretius 2.54-59; Lucilius 20-22, 243-246, 729-730, 
1284-1286, 1326-1333; Catullus 57-13: 43.I-4: 61.51-75, 128-140: 63.62- 
71: 64.256-259; Lucan, Phar. 7.544-557; Martial 1.109.1-5: 2.41.1-5: 
5.24, 58: 7.43: 9.97: 12.39; Ovid, Fasti 6.91-97; Pervig. Ven. 2-3, 28- 
35, 89-92. 

"Compare e. g. Aeneid 2.479-485: 4.628-629: 5.186-187; Horace, 
Epp. 2.1.46; Propertius 2.3.17-22. 

14 For some variations see Ennius, Scenica 322-323 ; Aeneid 2.389-392, 

48 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

Let us begin the illustration of the above principles with an 
examination of repeated monosyllables. Where a monosyllable 
occurs twice in the same line (or in adjacent lines), in the 
second occurrence it is usually without metrical accent, while 
the first begins the line 15 and carries the ictus. Very frequently, 
too, the two monosyllables lie on opposite sides of the main 
caesura of the verse 10 . This form of monosyllabic iteration is 
very widely employed by all the poets, especially by writers of 
hexameter verse. Examples are 
Catullus 62.4 

lam veniet virgo, iam dicetur Hymenaeus. 
Vergil, Aeneid 1.204 

Per varies casus, per tot discrimina rerum . . . 
3.80 Rex Anius, rex idem hominum Phoebique sacerdos. 

3.111-112 Hinc mater cultrix Cybeli Corybantiaque aera 

Idaeumque nemus; hinc fida silentia sacris. 
4.36 Non Libyae, non ante Tyro ; despectus larbas . . . 

4-5 2 ~53 dum pelago desaevit hiemps, et aquosus Orion, 

quassataeque rates, dum non tractabile caelum. 
4.548 Tu lacrimis evicta meis, tu prima furentem 17 . . . 

6.134 bis Stygios innare lacus, bis nigra videre . . . 

Horace, Sermones 1.4.47 

nee verbis nee rebus inest, nisi quod pede certo . . . 
2.7.112,114 non horam tecum esse potes, non otia recte 

iam vino quaerens, iam somno fallere curam. 
Claudian, In Eutropium II Praef. 17 

Non acie victi, non seditione coacti 18 . . . 

435-436: 3.436-438; Bucolics 2.62-64; Ovid, Fasti 2.85-87; Pervig. Ven. 
44-45, 49-52, 53-56; Claudian, De Con. IV Hon. Aug. 349-351. 

13 Since monosyllables are often not per se important words, we 
should expect to find them receiving, normally, variant treatment. 

18 This observation applies frequently throughout the classes noted on 
pages 48-59. It applies also, though perhaps less often, to the 
cases of repeated monosyllables with identical treatment seen in 

53 ff. 

17 Omitted in Teubner text. 

18 For other similar instances see Ennius, Annales 194, 359; Lucilius 
97-98, 1340; Lucretius 6.779, 1276; Catullus 62.45, 47: 110.5; Horace, 
Epp. 1. 1.66; Aeneid 2.62, 154-156, 198, 218, 227, 264, 296, 322, 361, etc.: 
6.466, 479, 560-561, 588, 615, 670, 791, etc.; Bucolics 1.33: 2.60-61: 
3.88, no: 4-40: 5-34, 38, 60, 76-77: 7-5, 14-15, 43-44, 49, 64: 8.45: 9-i6, 19, 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 49 

We may note now some other examples, which show mono- 
syllables occurring twice, in varying positions, with variant 
treatment, but with the second instance of the monosyllable 
carrying the ictus. This form is quite frequent in all the 
poets, and probably occurs outside of hexameter verse quite as 
frequently as the type illustrated on the preceding pages. Ex- 
amples are Horace Carm. 1.13.5 

Turn nee mens mihi nee color. 

Serm. 1.1.17-18 (here variant treatment of each of two dif- 
ferent monosyllables is secured by a chiasmus) : 

mercator: tu consultus modo rusticus; hinc vos, 

vos hinc mutatis discedite partibus. 
Aeneid 3.599-600 

cum fletu precibusque tulit: "per sidera testor 

per superos ..." 
Claudian, In Eutropium II Praef. 47-48 

Vive pudor f atis ! En quern tremuere tot urbes ! 

En cuius populi sustinuere iugum ! 
Martial 1.33.1,3: 

Amissum non flet, cum sola est, Gellia patrem, 

Non luget quisquis laudari, Gellia, quaerit. 
3.61.2 si nil, Cinna, petis, nil tibi, Cinna, nego 19 . 

When a monosyllable is thrice repeated in the same line or in 
closely adjacent lines, the usual practice among the Roman 
poets, so far as my collections indicate, is to let the ictus fall on 
the first and third instances of the monosyllable, and to leave 
the second instance without metrical accent. Further, the first 
and third instances frequently stand at the beginning of two 
successive lines. Though this is true of all the poets, examples 
are found most frequently in hexameter verse. Compare Lu- 
cretius 6.1276,1278 

nee iam religio divom nee numina magni 

24, 57; Persius 1.53-54: 3.68; Ovid, Amores 1.13-15; Met. 1.98-99; Tris- 
tia 1.3.52: 3-37; Juvenal 1.26, 53: 10.188: 11.125: 14.294; Martial 2.7.5: 
6.63.1, etc. 

19 Cf. Plautus, Most. 80; Lucretius 1.157-158: 6.299-300; Horace, 
Carm. 1.22.2-3; Epod. 17.2-3, 46-47; Aeneid 2.4-6, 43-45, 101-102, 337- 
338, 345-347: 6.437, 458-459, 461-462, 697-698; Bucolics 1.41, 68-70, 82- 
83: 2.56-57: 3.105-108; 7.45-46: 10.16-17; Juvenal 7.94-95. 

50 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

nee mos ille sepulturae remanebit in urbe. 
Aeneid 3.408-409 

Hunc socii morem sacrorum, hunc ipse teneto : 

hac casti maneant in religione nepotes. 
5.218-219 Sic Mnestheus, sic ipsa fuga secat ultima Pristis 

aequora, sic illam fert impetus ipse volantem. 
Bucolics 1.22-23 

Sic canibus catulos similis, sic matribus haedos 
noram, sic parvis componere magna solebam 20 . 
Tibullus 1.2.35-36 

neu strepitu terrete pedum, neu quaerite nomen, 

neu prope fulgenti lumina ferte face. 

Sometimes the regular procedure is reversed, and the second 
monosyllable carries the accent, while the first and the third 
are unaccented: Aeneid 3.558-559 

Et pater Anchises: "nimirum haec ilia Charybdis: 
hos Helenus scopulos, haec saxa horrenda canebat". 
Horace, Carm. 3.3.65-67 

Ter si resurgat murus aheneus 
auctore Phoebo, ter pereat meis 

excisus Argivis, ter uxor 21 . 

In still another variation less frequent the first two in- 
stances of the monosyllable carry the ictus : 
Lucan 7.551 

Hie furor, hie rabies, hie sunt tua crimina, Caesar. 
Aeneid 1.751-752 

nunc quibus Aurorae venisset films armis, 
nunc quales Diomedis equi, nunc quantus Achilles 22 . 
Still another variation is seen in Aeneid 2.97-98. Here the 
first monosyllable carries the ictus, while the other two are 
unaccented metrically 23 : 

'"Compare also Horace, Carm. 1.32.9-11: 2.16.33-35; Epp. 1.1.93-95; 
Aeneid 6.137, 144, 479-481; Juvenal 3.26-27; Martial 2.18.2-5; Ausonius, 
Mosella 139-140, 141-142; Pervig. Ven. 45; Statius, Silvae 1.3.29-30. 

21 Compare also Aeneid 2.345-350 : 4.376-377 ; Bucolics 4.43-48 ; Lucre- 
tius 5.322-323; Lucan, Phar. 3.151-158; Silius Italicus 15.580-581; Sta- 
tius, Silvae 1.658-663; Horace, Carm. 4.14.45-47. 

22 Compare also Aeneid 2.159-161, 292-294: 6.666-670; Bucolics 3.109: 
8.44; Catullus 38.2-3. 

23 Compare also Aeneid 2.156-159; Bucolics 9.40-41; Horace, Epod. 
7.2-4; Epp. 1.1.65-66; Statius, Silvae 1.2.148-149. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 51 

Hinc mihi prima mali labes, hinc semper Ulixes 
criminibus terrere novis, hinc spargere voces. 
So in Statius, Silvae 1.2.267 

qui leges, qui castra regant, qui carmina ludant. 
Another variation places the ictus on the last two monosylla- 
bles, while the first remains unaccented metrically. So Persius 

6.;8-79 24 

rem duplica. Feci ; iam triplex, iam mihi quarto, 
iam deciens redit in rugam. 

Finally, the first two instances of the monosyllable may be 
without the ictus, while the third carries the metrical accent. 
Compare Ovid, Met. 1.505-506: 

Nympha, mane ! sic agna lupum, sic cerva leonem, 
sic aquilam penna fugiunt trepidante columbae 25 . 
The treatment of four repeated monosyllables varies, but 
often the rule stated above (p. 48) for two repeated monosylla- 
bles will apply here, as though there were two different pairs. 
This is the case, for instance, in Varro, ANQPOXIOIIOAIS n 
(P- 103) 

Non fit thesauris, non auro pectu' solutum ; 
non demunt animis curas ac relligiones 
Persarum montes, non atria diviti' Crassi. 
Bucolics 10.29-30 

nee lacrimis crudelis Amor, nee gramina rivis, 
nee cytiso saturantur apes nee fronde capellae 26 . 
In Horace, Carm. 1.31.3-7 the metrical accent falls on the first 
and the third non (within lines 3 and 6), while the second and 
the fourth non, at the beginning of lines 5 and 7, are unac- 
cented 27 . In Juvenal 7.94-95 only the first of four instances of 
quis carries the ictus. In Plautus, Mostellaria 615 (quid . . . quid 
. . . quis . . . quid), the first and fourth instances of the mono- 
syllable are without ictus, the second and third are accented 
metrically, so that we have a kind of metrical chiasmus. Still 

21 See also Horace, Epod. 5.53; Martial 2.41.3-5; Statius, Silvae 1.5.3- 


23 Compare also Ovid, Amores 1.15.29-30; Plautus, Most. 595. 

26 Compare pp. 54-55. See also Bucolics 5-76-77 : 6.79-80; Ovid 
Tristia 3.9-12; Statius, Silvae 1.2.56-57. 

" Compare Catullus 8.10,13 and Aeneid 6.458-462. For slight varia- 
tions of this type see Juvenal 3.190-192 and Statius, Silvae 1.3.57-59- 

52 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

another variation is seen in Bucolics 3.56-57. Here the third 
nunc alone has metrical accent : 

et nunc omnis ager, nunc omnis parturit arbos, 
nunc frondent silvae, nunc formonsissimus annus 28 . 
Where the number of repeated monosyllables goes beyond four, 
no rule can be laid down. In Bucolics 7.65-68, however, the 
usual treatment of two repeated monosyllables is found, recur- 
ring three times : 

Fraxinus in silvis pulcherrima, pinus in hortis, 
populus in fluviis, abies in montibus altis: 
saepius at si me, Lycida formonse, revisas, 
fraxinus in silvis cedat tibi, pinus in hortis. 
A sharp contrast is Martial 5.58 

Cras te victurum, eras dicis, Postume, semper. 

Die mihi, eras istud, Postume, quando venit? 
Quam longe eras istud ? ubi est ? aut unde petendum ? 

Numquid apud Parthos Armeniosque latet? 
lam eras istud habet Priami vel Nestoris annos. 

Cras istud quanti, die mihi, posset emi? 
Cras vives ? Hodie iam vivere, Postume, serum est : 

ille sapit, quisquis, Postume, vixit heri. 
Here the metrical treatment is most skilful: every time eras 
is the important word it receives the ictus. In line i it has 
received enough emphasis from its position, so that when it is 
repeated it occurs in the unaccented part of the foot. In the 
second line, eras is again an important word, with quando, and 
both receive the ictus. Longe is the weightiest word in the 
third line, and eras is unaccented. This treatment is followed all 
the way through the poem, and shows well Martial's cleverness 29 
in his repetitions and his mastery of the metrical details 30 . 
I quote now from the Aeneid two examples of monosyllabic 

28 For other variations see Ennius, Annales 111-113, 431 '> PlautuSj 
Most. 615; Terence, Phormio 496; Bucolics 4.4-10: 7.36-44: 10.42-43; 
Persius 1.36-39; Martial 11.18.1-3; Statius, Silvae 1.1.11-13. 

29 Compare pp. 33-35. 

80 Compare also Juvenal 7.190-194 (p. 36) ; Claudian De IV Con. 
Hon. Aug. 492-501 ; Terence, Heaut. 975-977; Catullus 43-1-4 ; Aeneid 2. 
150-151; Horace, Carm. 4.1.29-32: 4.13.17-20; A. P. 307-308; Ovid, Met. 
3.402-405; Persius 3.65-69; Statius, Silvae 1.1.79-81: 2.226-227: 6.93-96; 
Lucilius 9; Ennius, Scenica 92. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 53 

iteration with variant treatment where similar treatment would 
have been more effective : 

3.490 sic oculos, sic ille manus, sic ora ferebat. 

4.548-549 Tu lacrimis evicta meis, tu prima furentem 

his, germana, malis oneras atque obicis hosti 31 . 
I turn now to some examples of repeated monosyllables which 
receive identical treatment. In practically all cases emphasis 
or some rhetorical effect is gained or aided. Two methods are 
to be noted. The first, of which examples are not very numer- 
ous, is the repetition of the monosyllable twice or three times in 
a single line with the same metrical treatment. Examples are 
Aeneid I.46-47 32 

Ast ego, quae divom incedo regina, lovisque 

et soror et coniunx . . . 
1.699-700 lam pater Aeneas et iam Troiana iuventus 

conveniunt . . . 
Horace, Epod. 17.40-41 

tu pudica, tu proba . . . 

perambulabis astra sidus aureum . . . 
Martial 1.36.1 

Si, Lucane, tibi vel si tibi, Tulle, darentur . . . 
2.43. i Koiva <i'A.a>v haec sunt, haec sunt tua, Candide, Koiva 33 . 
3-63.13 Quid narras? hoc est hoc est homo, Cotile, bellus 34 ? 
11.18.3 Rus hoc dicere, rus potes vocare? 
Prudentius, Hymnus Omni Hora 83 

die tropaeum passionis, die triumphalem crucem 35 . 

81 Omitted in the Teubner text. 

82 Here the identical treatment in et et emphasizes the duality of 
Juno; in the fact that she is at once the sister and the wife of Jove 
lies the bitterness of her inability to wreak vengeance on the Trojans. 
Compare also Claudian, De IV Con. Hon. Aug. 497-5<>i. 

33 The emphasis here, of course, is on sunt, and, in the next cita- 
tion, on est. 

84 Here the emphasis is, I think, on est, though hoc precedes. The 
sense is, 'Is this, is this', etc. Messrs. Paley and Strong seem to have 
taken the same view, for they translated by 'Is this, and this also, a 
bellus homo?'. They add by way of comment on hoc -hoc this re- 
mark: "So rb<ra KO! r6<ra is used of varied numbers or qualities". 

36 Compare also Terence, Heaut. 322 (note the unaccented vis in 
line 323) ; Martial 9.46.3 (observe nunc in line 2) ; Statius, Silvae 
i. 2.221 (note huic in line 222) ; Pervig. Ven. 33. 

54 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

Horace, Epp. 2.1.60-61 

Hos ediscit, et hos arcto stipata theatre 
spectat Roma potens ; habet hos numeratque poetas. 
Best of all is Martial 4.69.4 

nee puto, nee credo, Papyle, nee sitio. 

In Claudian, De IV Con. Hon. Aug. 530-531 we find a very 
unusual phenomenon three unaccented monosyllables : 

Scis quo more Cydon, qua dirigat arte sagittas 
Armenius, refugo quae sit fiducia Partho 36 . 
The second method followed by the poets in identical metrical 
treatment of monosyllables is anaphoraic repetition, at the be- 
ginning of two or more consecutive lines. Examples are Aeneid 

Ter scopuli clamorem inter cava saxa dedere : 
ter spumam elisam et rorantia vidimus astra. 
Horace, Carm. 1.5.9-11 

qui nunc te fruitur credulus aurea, 
qui semper vacuam, semper amabilem 
sperat . . . 

4.13.17-20 Quo fugit venus, heu, quove color, decens 
quo motus? Quid habes illius, illius 
quae spirabat amores, 

quae me surpuerat mihi 37 . 
Claudian, De IV Con. Hon. Aug. 349-351 

Nunc eques in medias equitum te consere turmas, 
nunc pedes assistas pediti. Tune promptius ibunt 
te socio, tune conspicuus gratusque feretur 38 . . . 
This passage is interesting in another way. There is a double 
anaphora; again, nunc nunc and tune tune respectively re- 
ceive identical metrical treatment, but opposite treatment to 
each other. 

I quote now a few instances of metrical treatment which 
follow neither of the above methods. Occasionally monosylla- 

86 Compare Catullus 17.22; Aeneid 3.608-609; Horace, Carm. 4.14.33- 
34; Silius Italicus 1.157, 162, 465. 

87 Both methods are here combined. But note the quid of line 18, 
which is unaccented. 

38 Compare also Catullus 64.19-21, 39-40, 257-260 (note the ac- 
cented pars in line 256) ; Horace, Carm. 1.12.57-60. In Martial 1.41.7- 
15 quod occurs at the beginning of eight of the nine lines. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 55 

bles are placed in corresponding positions in successive lines, 
but in other places than the first foot. Compare Aeneid 

exciderat puppi mediis effusus in undis. 

Hunc ubi vix multa maestum cognovit in umbra . . . 
Here the instances of the monosyllable, in this case of minor 
importance, are in obscure metrical positions. In Martial 


rides nos Coracine, nil olentis : 
malo, quam bene olere, nil olere 39 , 

nil nil are the consequential words : the metrical treatment 
throws that out in sharp relief. 

Horace, Carm. 4.13.10-12 is worthy of note: 
. . . et ref ugit te, quia luridi 
dentes te, quia rugae 
turpant et capitis nives. 

The identical treatment in these lines adds signally to their 
force 40 . 

In the case of a refrain, all the words, of course, receive 
identical treatment. I quote now only one example involving 
a partial refrain to show how effective the repetition of a 
monosyllable in a refrain with identical treatment may be, 
when the repeated lines are in close proximity: 
Martial 2.18 

Capto tuam, pudet heu, sed capto, Maxime, cenam, 

tu captas aliam: iam sumus ergo pares. 
Mane salutatum venio, tu diceris isse 

ante salutatum: iam sumus ergo pares. 
Sum comes ipse tuus tumidique anteambulo regis, 

tu comes alterius : iam sumus ergo pares. 
Esse sat est servum, iam nolo vicarius esse: 

qui rex est, regem, Maxime, non habeat. 

Metrically these lines, quite aside from the refrain, are very 
interesting, since the poet combines most skillfully identical 
.and variant treatment. 

Before we leave monosyllables, mention should be made of 
one more type of repetition which employs them very largely, 
namely, epizeuxis. In this figure the two instances of the 

** For a similar treatment cf. Bucolics 10.29-30. Line 5 of the above 
citation reminds us of Plautus, Most. 273. 
"See also Catullus 56.1-4:61.116-118; Horace, Carm. 1.8.5-8. 

56 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

monosyllable are found most frequently at the beginning of the 
lines. Variant metrical treatment is here, of course, almost 
inevitable (unless the second monosyllable is elided) 41 . 
Horace, Carm. 1.15.9-10 

Heu heu, quantus equis, quantus adest viris 

sudor 42 ! 

Epod. 2.68 43 

iam iam futurus rusticus. 
4.20 hoc, hoc tribuno militum? 

5-53~54 Nunc, nunc adeste . . . 
7.1 Q u > quo scelesti ruitis? 

Seneca, Medea 990 

Iam iam recepi sceptra, germanum, patrem. 
Persius 2.50 

iam dabitur, iam iam ! donee deceptus et exspes 44 . . , 
We may examine next the metrical treatment of certain 
adverbs, such as semper, simul, unde, modo, iterum, illic, saepe, 
etc. Most of these adverbs are naturally emphatic if repeated 
at all, and hence when repeated naturally receive identical 
treatment 45 . 
Ennius, Annales 91-92 

Et simul ex alto longe pulcherrima praepes 

laeva volavit avis. Simul aureus exoritur sol. 
Horace, Carm. 2.9.1,9,17 

Non semper imbres nubibus hispidos 

tu semper urgues flebilibus modis 
flevere semper 46 : . . . 

41 This type of repetition is found more frequently in the Epodes of 
Horace than in the works of any other Latin poet. See above, p. 

41 The Teubner text reads eheu. 

43 Compare p. 24. 

44 Compare also Catullus 6373 :64.iQ5 ; Aeneid 2.701 14.371 ; Bucolics 
2.58; Seneca, Medea 13; Persius 3.23:6.67; Statius, Silvae 1.6.96; Pru 
dentius, Hymnus Matutinus 33. 

45 In some cases, too, e.g. undique, iterum, only identical treatment is 
possible (see page 57). 

48 usque, 4, omnis, 6, omnis, 14, in which there is coincidence of ictu* 
and word-accent, enhance the effect of the triple semper. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 57 

Aeneid 2.510,515 

circumdat nequiquam umeris, et inutile ferrum 

Hie Hecuba et natae nequiquam altaria circum 47 . 
3.185 et saepe Hesperiam, saepe Itala regna vocare. 

3.193 adparent terrae, caelum undique et undique pontus. 

3.436 praedicam, et repetens iterumque iterumque 


Examples of variant treatment of adverbs where identical 
treatment would have been more effective are Aeneid 2.108-111 
Saepe fugam Danai Troia cupiere relicta 
moliri et longo fessi discedere bello 
( f ecissentque utinam!), saepe illos aspera ponti 
interclusit hiems . . . 
Horace, Carm. 1.5.9-11 

qui nunc te fruitur credulus aurea, 
qui semper vacuam, semper 48 amabilem 
sperat 49 . .. 

An unusual example of the conjunction neque thrice re- 
peated within a single line with identical treatment (each in- 
stance carries the ictus) occurs in Plautus, Most. 264. 

neque cerussam neque Melinum neque aliam ullam 


Philematium had said Cedo cerussam : Scapha replies, 'I won't, 
I won't, I won't'. 

47 For other instances of the repetition of the above adverbs and 
others, with identical treatment, see Plautus, Most. 484-491 ; Lucilius 
1220-1221; Lucretius 3.445-446; Horace, Carm. 1.15. 13-16; Serm. 
I-3-9-I3 (saepe and modo*), 10.71-72:2.4.60-61, 8.116; Epp. 1.1.24-25; 
Ovid, Fasti 2.85-87; Met. 1.481-482; Tristia I.3-5I-53, 57-59; Propertius 
1.3.21-23:3.15.13-15; Martial 1.79.1-2; Statius, Silvae 1.2.22; Claudian, 
De Raptu Pros. 1.191-192; Pervig. Ven. 89-90; Aeneid 2.368-369, 636, 
756, 770:478-79, 351-352, 466-467, 531-534, 566-567:6.39-44, 258, 716-722; 
Bucolics 1.16-21 :3.50-53 .-5. 16-17:6.29-30:8.97-98. 

48 Identical treatment would here have been more effective. Still, it 
would have been impossible to give semper-semper identical metrical 
treatment while clinging to the effective anaphora in qui-qui; otherwise 
semper qui vacuam, semper amabilem might have been written. 

49 Compare also, for variant and combined treatment, Ennius, Scenica 
240; Plautus, Most 615; Lucretius 6.2-6; Catullus 63.12-13; Aeneid 
1.743:2.299-303, 458-461:4.413:6.93-94, 869-877; Bucolics 1.28-30:2.16-19: 
8.23:9.11-17, 55-62; Horace, Serm. 1.3.7-8; Ovid, Heroides 10.109-110; 
Seneca, Medea 139; Juvenal 1.150-151; Propertius 2.3.17-19. 

58 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

In Ovid, Met. 6.245-247, where simul occurs four times r 
Ingemuere simul, simul incurvata dolore 
membra solo posuere ; simul suprema iacentes 
lumina versarunt, animam simul exhalarunt 50 , 
identical and variant treatment are combined with great skill. 
The first and the third simul coincide in metrical value, and the 
second and fourth receive similar treatment. An example il- 
lustrating the usual treatment of repeated etiam is Catullus 

Miser a miser, querendumst etiam atque etiam r 

anime 51 . 

I cite now some examples of the repetition of the intensive 
pronoun ipse t in the nominative singular, masculine or femin- 
ine. It almost always receives identical metrical treatment,, 
both because it is emphatic by nature, and because (especially 
in hexameter) only one treatment is possible, unless there be 
elision (the plural forms, of course, may be handled with more 
freedom). Catullus 62.60-61 

non aequomst pugnare, pater cui tradidit ipse, 
ipse pater cum matre, quibus parere necessest. 
64.26-27 Thessaliae columen Peleu, cui luppiter ipse, 

ipse suos divom genitor concessit amores. 
Aeneid 5.176 

ipse gubernaclo rector subit, ipse magister 52 . 
Idem and iste are repeated very rarely. Ille usually receives 
identical treatment (the considerations noted above in connec- 
tion with the nominative singular of ipse apply to the nominative- 
singular of ille, but not to all the other case forms). An ex- 
ample is Catullus 58. i -3 53 . In Catullus 62.42, 44, 

Multi ilium pueri, multae optavere puellae: 

50 For the treatment of the perfects here see p. 68. 

"Compare also Ennius, Scenica 217-218; Aeneid 4.305-309; Bucolics- 
4.58-59:10.13-14. But see also Aeneid 6.485 and Bucolics 2.8-9. 

"Compare also Martial 8.50.20; Pervig. Ven. 13-15, 40-41, 77-79; 
Aeneid 2.409-502, 518-522, 617-618, 753-755:4-268-273, 356-358, 601-606:5.- 
218-219 16.185-191 ; Bucolics 1.9-12 12.62-63 14.21-23, 38-43 :5-35 :8.92-96 ; 
Catullus 62.69-70; Juvenal 8.147-148. For identical and variant treat- 
ment combined see e.g. Bucolics 1.39-40:5.62-64. 

63 Compare also Lucilius 369-370; Lucretius 3.1091-1093; Ovid, Fasti 
4.91-92, 95-97; Seneca, Medea 500; Martial 8.24.6; Tibullus 1.2.17-21;. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 59 

ntilli ilium pueri, nullae optavere puellae, 
though variant metrical treatment is possible, we have never- 
theless identical treatment. Two examples follow in which 
there is variant treatment of idem and illam: 
Aeneid 3.503-504 quibus idem Dardanus auctor 

atque idem casus . . . 
Propertius 2.3.43 

sive illam Hesperiis, sive illam ostendet Eois 54 . 
There is not space to take up the personal pronouns in de- 
tail. As a rule, they, too, follow the general principle laid 
down on page 44. 

Adjectives next claim our attention. Many of the poets ex- 
hibit great skill in the manipulation of them, and we find that 
the rule given on page 44 still holds good, with but few 
exceptions. Examples of variant treatment of adjectives are 
Aeneid 1.657 

At Cytherea novas artes, nova pectore versat 55 . 
3.310 'Verane te facies, verus mihi nuntius adfers . . ,' 55 

5.118 ingentemque Gyas ingenti mole Chimaeram. 

5.136-137 Considunt transtris, intentaque bracchia remis; 

intenti expectant signum . . , 55 
Juvenal 5.133-134 quantus 

ex nihilo, quantus fieres Virronis amicus! 
11.63 a l ter aquis, alter flammis ad sidera missus 56 . 

Juvenal 10.196-197; Aeneid 2.274-278:4.28-29:6.469-473, 836-838:7.69-70; 
Bucolics 1.7-9 -3-43-47 :4-i5~i6 :8.49-50 : 10.13- 14. 

M Compare also for variant and combined treatment, Ennius, Scenica 
270-272; Aeneid 4.238-245:6.320-326, 479-482, 512-517; Bucolics 3.61:6. 
67-70, 79-84:7.17-23:8.19-23:10.54-64; Martial 5.58.2-6. For variant and 
combined treatment of ipse, see also Aeneid 4.141, 147; Bucolics 1.34- 
40:5.62-64:7.7-11 :8.io6-io8:io.63. 

55 In all these cases, to be sure, and in a large number of similar 
examples (see footnotes 56 and 57 below, on pages 59 and 60), if 
the poet was determined to use in each case the particular forms of 
the individual word which he did in fact repeat, only variant treat- 
ment was possible. 

M For other examples of the variant treatment of adjectives see 
Ennius, Annales 287-288; Plautus, Most. 13; Catullus 45.21-23:62.42-44, 
53-55; Lucretius 2.1-2:3.898; Aeneid 2.397-398, 458-463, 674-677, 703 .-3, 
494:4.90-92, 308-311, 657, 658-662:6.442-446, 665-667; Bucolics 1.51-54:3- 
59:4.39:5.44:10.39, 75-76; Horace, Carm. 1.32.11; Persius 1.87; Silius- 
Italicus 1.393; Ausonius, Mosella 431. 

60 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

We may note now examples of the repetition of adjectives 
with variant treatment, where similar treatment would have 
been more effective: Plautus, Most. 181 

PH. Ego verum amo : verum volo dici mihi : men- 

dacem odi. 

Aeneid 4.3-4 Multa viri virtus animo, multusque recursat 
gentis honos 57 . 

Examples showing the triple occurrence of an adjective are 

Catullus 78.3-4 

Callus homost bellus : nam dulces iungit amores, 
cum puero ut bello bella puella cubet. 

Here, however, if the poet was determined on the juxtaposition 

of bello and bella, only variant treatment was possible. 

Quintus Cicero, Epigram 2 (quoted by Cruttwell, History of 

Roman Literature, p. 186) : 

Femina nulla bona est, et, si bona contigil ulla, 
nescio quo fato res mala facta bona 58 . 

Silius Italicus 1.656-657 

Omnis Hiber, omnis rapidis fera Gallia turmis, 
omnis ad aestifero sitiens Libyo imminet axe. 

Harmony and variety are secured in these lines by means of the 

combined identical and variant treatment. The treatment 

corresponds, it may be noted, to the normal treatment of triple 

monosyllables (p49). 

Statius, Silvae 1.2.233-234 

omnis honos, cuncti veniunt ad limiria fasces; 
omnis plebeio teritur praetexta tumultu. 

Cuncti in this passage corresponds essentially to the second 

omnis in the preceding quotation, and the metrical treatment 

of the three numerical words in the two passages is thus the 


Juvenal 7.189-194 exempla novorum 

fatorum transi. Felix et pulcher et acer, 
felix et sapiens et nobilis et generosus, 
appositam nigrae lunam subtexit alutae; 

"Cf. also Aeneid 3435:6.692-693; Persius 1.53-55:6.68; Ovid, Met.;. 
198; Silius Italicus 1.242-243, etc. 

68 Observe that there are in fact three separate treatments of the ad- 
jective in this passage. Still the first and third examples of the word 
have virtually identical treatment. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 61 

felix orator quoque maximus et iaculator, 

et, si perfrixit, cantat bene . . . 

Here the treatment of the triple felix is like that of the triple 
monosyllables in Aeneid 2.97-98, Statins, Silvae 1.2.267, dis- 
cussed on pages 50-51. 
8.213-214 cuius supplicio non debuit ima parari 

simia nee serpens unus nee culleus unus 59 . 
Lucretius 1.66-67, 7 1 ma y n w be quoted 60 . The change in 
treatment from primum, an adverb, to primusque - primus, ad- 
jectives, is noteworthy: 

primum Graius homo mortalis tollere contra 

est oculos ausus primusque obsistere contra, 

naturae primus portarum claustra cupiret. 
Martial 2.7 is remarkable for the varieties of treatment of 
the forms of the adjective bellus and the adverb belle: 
Declamas belle, causas agis, Attice, belle, 
historias bellas, carmina bella facis, 
componis belle mimos, epigrammata belle, 

bellus grammaticus, bellus es astrologus, 
et belle cantas et saltas, Attice, belle, 

bellus es arte lyrae,. bellus es arte pilae. 
Nil bene cum facias, facias tamen omnia belle, 

vis dicam quid sis ? magnus es ardalio 61 . 
Examples of identical metrical treatment of adjectives are 
found in all the poets in much larger number than those of 
variant treatment. It will not be necessary to specify in each 
case the particular effect gained through repetition, since I 
shall endeavor to use examples which shall be self-explana- 
Catullus 82 

Quinti, si tibi vis oculos debere Catullum 

aut aliud si quid carius est oculis, 
eripere ei noli multo quod carius illi 

est oculis seu quid carius est oculis. 

59 See page 60, note 58. 

60 See above, pp. 14-15, and page 15, note 20. 

61 For other instances of combined treatment compare Lucretius 5-9Qi J 
993; Plautus, Most. 254-255; Catullus 78: 87; Propertius 4.13.48-50; 
Aeneid 2.189-192, 670-679, 709-716, 728-730:4.138-139:6.105-117, 618-627, 
787-789; Bucolics 543-52. 

62 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

112 Multus homo es, Naso, neque tecum multus homo 


descendit: Naso, multus es et pathicus. 
Vergil, Aeneid 1.221-222 

nunc Amyci casum gemit et crudelia secum 

fata Lyci, fortemque Cyan fortemque Cloanthum. 
5.186-187 nee tota tamen ille prior praeeunte carina, 

parte prior ; . . . 
6- 1 33-1 34 Quod si tantus amor menti, si tanta cupido 

bis Stygios innare lacus . . . 
Bucolics 3.56 

et nunc omnis ager, nunc omnis parturit arbos. 
Horace, Carm. 1.15.9-10 

Heu heu, quantus equis, quantus adest viris 
sudor ! Quanta moves funera . . . 

Ovid, Met. 13.301 Me pia detinuit coniunx, pia mater Achillem. 
Martial 2.19 

Felicem fieri credis me, Zoile, cena? 
felicem cena, Zoile, deinde ttia? 
Debet Aricino conviva recumbere clivo, 

quern tua felicem, Zoile, cena facit. 
2.58 Pexatus pulchre rides, mea Zoile, trita. 

Sunt haec trita quidem, Zoile, sed mea sunt. 
12.39 Odi te, quia bellus es, Sabelle: 

res est putida bellus et Sabellus ; 
bellum denique malo quam Sabellum. 
Tabescas utinam, Sabelle, belle 62 . 

82 It should be noted that, in many cases, unless there be elision, 
identical treatment is unavoidable, where the poet repeats an adjective 
without change of form (cf. page 59, note 55). Other examples be- 
side those to be found on pages 61-62 are Ennius, Annales 187-189; 
Lucilius iio-in, 132, 485-489; Catullus 42.11-12:62.15, 73-74:64.403-404; 
Aeneid 3-31-33, 412 :4-39O-395, 433-437:6.46-53, 372, 656-664, 74<>-74i : 
893-895; Bucolics 1.76-81:4.34, 60-62:5.46:7.55-59:9.4-9, 5-10; Horace, A. 
P. 175-176; Ovid, Heroides 10.94; Met. 5.341-343:13.301; Rem. Am. 
265-267; Propertius 4.9.67-68; Persius 6.52-54; Juvenal 7-I34-I35; Per- 
vig. Ven. 32-35 ; Ausonius, Mosella 426 ; Claudian, In Rufinum II 26- 
28. Instances of inevitable identical treatment with slight changes in 
the repetend are Lucilius 995; Lucretius 2.54-55; Catullus 56.1-4; 
Aeneid 2.389-392:3.159-160:6.418-422, 576-582; Martial 1.109.19-20:11.92; 
Juvenal 8.270-271. For examples of adjectives to which the poets have 
given identical treatment deliberately, see Ennius, Scenica 260-261 ; 
Plautus, Most. 186; Catullus 49.5-7:64.334-335; Horace, Serm. 1.6.54-56: 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 63 

We now come to the consideration of the material treatment 
of verbs. It is interesting that, according to my collections, 
in Vergil nouns are repeated far more often than any other 
class of words, while in the other poets verbs constitute the re- 
petend in the majority of cases. The predominance of in- 
stances of identical treatment in verbs in all the poets is no- 
ticeable; a verb, if repeated at all, is inherently emphatic, and 
its repetition therefore tends more strongly to produce a 
special effect of some sort than does the iteration of any other 
word in a sentence 63 . That the same is true of a great many 
adverbs was pointed out on page 56. In many cases, also, 
the metrical structure of the verb form compels identical 
treatment, if there is to be repetition at all. But examples of 
variant treatment are to be found in considerable numbers. In 
some cases verbs receive variant treatment obviously that an 
effect of variety may be produced or some rhetorical figure 
may be worked out. The first passage I shall cite illustrates 
this point: see Catullus 94.1 

Mentula moechatur. Moechatur mentula certe. 
Here, if the chiasmus is to be secured, variant treatment is in- 
evitable. Other examples of variant treatment are 
Lucilius 6.244 

. . . quidquid habet nummorum, secum habet ipse. 
Aeneid 5.80-81 

Salve, sancte parens: iterum salvete, recepti 

nequiquam cineres . . . 
Martial 3.61 

Esse nihil dicis quidquid petis, improbe Cinna: 
si nil, Cinna, petis, nil tibi, Cinna, nego. 

A.P.37; Lucilius 218, 839-840; Lucretius 4.1259 (crassis) : 6.777-781; 
Aeneid 1.408, 599:2.204-208, 667, 750:4.169. 219-227, 286-298, 398-401* 
429-435:5.46-53, 320:6.43, 137-144, 308-310, 352-354, 417-423, 594-597, 
599-603, 736-739, 748-754, 819-824, 828-829 7.64-70 ; Bucolics 448-49 :5-2O- 
23, 86-90:6.47-52, 62-68:7.4, 18-19:8.48-50, 58-63 (cf. Lucilius 218) ; Ovid, 
Heroides 111-115; Met. 2.284; Lucan, Phar. 1.510-513:2.212-216, 677- 
680; Propertius 1.3.1-3; Tibullus 4.1.19-20; Persius i.m; Juvenal 7.84- 
85:12.111; Martial 1.9.1-2:4.75.1:3.63.13-14:10.35.1-4, 11-12; Silius Itali- 
cus 1.343-344; Ausonius, Mosella 258-265; Prudentius, Hymnus ante 
Sompnum 6. 

63 This would seem to be especially true of Latin, one special source 
of whose strength is the verb. 

64 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

8.24.5-6 Qui fingit sacros auro vel marmore vultus, 
non facit ille deos : qui rogat, ille facit. 
In Martial 2.5.7-8 three different verbs are repeated, two 
with identical and one with variant treatment: 

Te tamen ut videam, duo millia non piget ire : 

ut te non videam, quattuor ire piget. 

In 1.79 the repetition is extremely interesting, for a study of 
the effectiveness of combined treatment (in agis - agas, est - 
est, desunt - desit) : 

Semper agis causas et res agis, Attale, semper ; 
est, non est quod agas : Attale, semper agis. 
Si res et causae desunt, agis, Attale, mulas. 

Attale, ne quod agas desit, agas animam 64 . 
We turn now to consider instances of the identical metrical 
treatment of verbs. I find that, out of a great number of ex- 
amples from all the poets, about half receive identical treat- 
ment because no other was possible (except through elision) : 
reference may be made again to page 44. 

M For examples of variant or combined treatment of verbs where a 
similar treatment would have been more effective, see Aeneid 2.306:3. 
470, 603:6.617:7.41-42; Terence, Phormio 286-287; Lucretius 6.299-300; 
Catullus 9.3-5; Horace, Carm. 2.17.10:4.2.14-15, 4.70; Ovid, Met. 1.514; 
Seneca, Medea 13-16, 845; Persius 1.53-54: 2.68: 5-I32-I33; Juvenal 
8.171-172:10.188; Statius, Silvae 1.2.33-34. It should be noted, how- 
ever, that in some of these examples identical treatment was impossi- 
ble because of a change of form in the repetend. For instances of 
varied treatment in general (to many of which the point just made 
applies), compare Aeneid 2.74-76, 347-35O, 555-56i :4-i73-i75, 381-384: 
5.231:6.191-201, 421-422, 454, 490-495, 622, 653-655:7.54-55; Bucolics 3.49- 
50:4.1-3, 6:6.55-59, 69-72, 83-86:8.5-8:10.16-17, 24-26; Ennius, Annales 
359, 429; Scenica, 240; Plautus, Most. 595, 778; Lucilius 27-28, 33; 
Lucretius 2.1022; Catullus 61.204:94.1:110.4-5; Horace, Epp. 1.1.94-96: 
2.1.46; Ovid, Heroides 5.30-31; Lucan, Phar. 5-793-796"; Seneca, Medea 
25, 32, 199-200, 423, 560-561 ; Propertius 2.8.7-8 ; Persius 5.66 ; Juvenal 
3.190:7.90,223. For examples of combined treatment, see Aeneid 4.246- 
256, 290-299, 431-437, 654-655:6.697-700; Bucolics 8.77-78:10.19-21; En- 
nius, Annales 493; Plautus, Most. 59, 303-305, 455-462, 553-555; Luci- 
lius 369-370, 1284-1286; Terence, Phormio 206-208; Heaut. 322-324, 924- 
925; Varro, Eumenides XXVI-XXVII ; Ovid, Met. 1.498-500; Seneca, 
Medea 447-450, 911-913; Persius 1.27; Statius, Silvae 1.3.83-88; Martial 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 65 

Aeneid 2.143-144 

intemerata fides, oro, miserere laborum 

tantorum, miserere animi non digna ferentis. 
2.702 Di patrii, servate domum, servate nepotem. 

3.639 Sed fugite, o miseri, fugite, atque ab litore funem. 

4.659-660 Dixit, et os impressa toro, "moriemur inultae, 

sed moriamur" ait ... 
Bucolics 3.85-86 

Pierides, vitulam lectori pascite vestro. 

Pollio et ipse facit nova carmina : pascite taurum. 
4.50,52 Aspice convexo nutantem pondere mundum, 

Aspice, venturo laetentur ut omnia saeclo! 
8.68, 72, 76, etc. 

Ducite ab urbe domum, mea carmina, ducite 

Catullus 64.327, 333, 337, etc. 

Currite ducentes subtegmina, currite, fusi. 
Horace, A. P. 269 

nocturna versate manu, versate diurna. 
Lucan, Phar. 10.312, 314 

qua dirimunt Arabum populis Aegyptia rura 

qua dirimunt nostrum rubro commercia ponto. 
Juvenal 10.8 

. . . nocitura toga, nocitura petuntur. 
Statius, Silvae 1.4.123-124 

Nectite nunc laetae candentia fila, sorores, 

nectite ! nemo modum transmissi computet aevi. 
Pervigilium Veneris I, 8, 36, etc. 

Cras amet qui numquam amavit quique amavit eras 

Claudian, In Eutropium II Praef. 59 

Emeritum suspende sagum, suspende pharetram. 
Prudentius, Hymnus Omni Hora 82 

Solve vocem mens sonoram, solve linguam mo- 
bilem 65 . 

w For other examples see Aeneid 2.325, 498-499, 753-754 :4-65-6p, 312- 
313, 419-420:6.186-193, 477-485, 509-512, 669-677; Bucolics 1.75:2.63-64: 
4.24-25, 60-62:5.10-12:6.5-6, 14-16, 55-56:7.44:8.8-9, 61, 108:9.7-11, 61-67, 

66 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

I cite now some examples of the repetition of verbs with 
deliberate identical treatment. In practically every case some 
distinct effect is gained or at least aided by the repetition of 
the verb. 
Aeneid 1.421-422 

Miratur molem Aeneas, magalia quondam, 
miratur portas strepitumque et strata viarum 66 . 
2.483-484 Apparet domus intus, et atria longa patescunt; 

apparent Priami et veterum penetralia regum 67 . 
2.560-562 subiit cari genitoris imago, 

vitam exhalantem; subiit deserta Creusa. 
3.623, 626 Vidi egomet, duo de numero cum corpora nostro 

limina; vidi atro cum membra fluentia tabo 68 . 
6.51-52 "Cessas in vota precesque, 

Tros" ait "Aenea ? Cessas ?" 

6.546 I decus, i, nostrum ; melioribus utere fads ! 

Bucolics 3.104,106 

Die, quibus in terris et eris mihi magnus Apoll 

Die, quibus in terris inscripti nomina regum. 
Plautus, Most. 7-8 

An ruri censes te esse? Abscede ab aedibus. 
Abi rus : abi dierecte. Abscede ab aedibus 69 . 

64-65:10.77; Plautus, Most. 273; Lucilius 184-185; Catullus 42.11-12:92. 
2-4; Horace, Carm. 2.3.17-19, 19.7-8:4.2.33-41; Epod. 17.7; Ovid, Fasti 
1.67-69; Lucan, Phar. 7.512-514:9.953-954; Seneca, Medea 828-829; 
Tibullus 2.6.52; Persius 3.88-89:6.68; Juvenal 7.184-185, 197-198; Silius 
Italictis 1.568-571:17.652-653: Martial 1.32, 33.4:2.5.7-8, 7.7; Pervig. 
Ven. 89-92. 

M The repetition here lays stress on the recurrence of the feeling of 
astonishment. In 1.709, mirantur dona Aeneae, mirantur lulum, the 
nouns which represent the various objects of the Tyrian's astonish- 
ment are of prime importance; the variant treatment, then, of both 
verb and nouns is effective. 

"The repetition here gives the effect of a strong ecce . . . ecce, or 
en . . . en. 

68 Here the identity extends even to the elision in both verses of the 
final syllable of vidi. 

69 Here, if we take dierecte as a quadrisyllable, with each syllable long, 
we get identical treatment also in abi-abi. Further, rus and dierecte, 
the important words, will then be brought out most sharply by the 
ictuses they carry; to the city slave going to the country and going to 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 67 

Catullus 8.11-12, 19 

Sed obstinata mente perfer, obdura. 
Vale, puella. lam Catullus obdurat, 

at tu, Catulle, destinatus obdura 70 . 
Horace, Carm. 2.4.4-5 movit Achillem, 

movit Aiacem Telamone natum. 
Ovid, Rem. Am. 265, 267 

Omnia fecisti, ne callidus hospes abiret: 

omnia fecisti, ne te ferus ureret ignis. 
Seneca, Medea 140-141 ... Si potest, vivat meus, 

ut fuit lason ; si minus, vivat tamen. 
Persius 3.41-42 

purpureas subter cervices terruit, imus, 

imus praecipites, quam si sibi dicat et intus 
Martial 12.80.1 

Ne laudet dignos, laudat Callistratus omnes. 
Prudentius, Hymnus Omni Hora 22-23 

Psallat altitudo caeli, psallant omnes angeli, 

quidquid est virtutis usquam, psallat in laudem 

Dei 71 . 

We may observe now some variations in the treatment of the 
perfect indicative active, third plural. It is to be noted that in 
hexameters only one treatment of perfects in -ere preceded by 

the devil are expressions for the one idea. For the scansion of dierecte 
here adopted see e.g. Sonnenschein ad loc. (first edition). This ex- 
ample is but one of many where the principles laid down in this 
chapter have important bearing on interpretation or on the determina- 
tion of the text (see e. g. page 76, note 90). 

70 This verbal antistrophe is unusual. 

"Compare also Aeneid 2.80, 105-114:4.83, 438, 590-593, 669-674, 678- 
680:6.36-40, 46-53, 122-123, 342-348; Bucolics 3.21-23:6.61-64:9.39-43: 
10.28-31, 31-41, 50-59; Ennius, Scenica 28; Plautus, Most. 1-5, 329, 
489-491, 671-672, 1028-1029; Lucilius 203-205, 486-488, 729-730, 839-840, 
1015-1016; Terence, Phormio 352-353, 414-415; Catullus 52.1-4:61.210- 
211 ; Horace, Carm. 1.19.5-7; Epod. 6.11-12; Epp. 2.2.37-40; Ovid, Met. 
1.481-482; Rem. Am. 257-258; Seneca, Medea 272-273, 505-506; Pro- 
pertius 3.25.41-44; Tibullus 3.6.19-21:4.2.11-12; Lucan, Phar. 7.197-203:8. 
194-196; Persius 2.49:5.84-87; Juvenal 5.112-113:7.50-51:10.173-176:13. 
33-34; Silius Italicus 1.465:3.116:10.515; Pervig. Ven. 38-41; Martial 
Lib. Ep. 29.1:1.109.22-23:1.76:2.38.1-2:7.43.1-4:9.97.1-11:10.35.1-4, 11-12 

68 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

two long syllables or by two short syllables is possible. Such 
treatment may be seen to good advantage in Catullus 62.42,44 
multi ilium pueri, multae optavere puellae : 

nulli ilium pueri, nullae optavere puellae 72 . 
6 2 -53~55 hanc nulli agricolae, nulli coluere bubulci 

multi ilium agricolae, multi coluere bubulci. 
Claudian, In Eutropium II Praef. 47-48 

Vive pudor fatis ! En quern tremuere tot urbes ! 

en cuius populi sustinuere iugum ! 

Perfects in -arunt, -erunt may be handled with more free- 
dom. So in Ovid, Met. 6.245-247, though ingemuere and 
posuere are of necessity treated identically, there is variant 
treatment of versarunt and exhalarunt : 

ingemuere simul, simul incurvata dolore 
membra solo posuere ; simul suprema iacentes 
lumina versarunt, animam simul exhalarunt. 
To Catullus 62.28, quae pepigere viri, pepigerunt ante parentes, 
and Vergil, Bucolics 10.13 ff., reference has already been made 
(page 3). On the latter passage, which runs 

Ilium etiam lauri, etiam flevere myricae. 
Pinifer ilium etiam sola sub rupe iacentem 
Maenalus, et gelidi fleverunt saxa Lycaei, 
the poet was free, had he so desired, to vary his treatment. 
For an instance of variant treatment of the perfect indicative 
third plural, made possible by elision, Aeneid 6.191,201 may 
be cited: 

ipsa sub ora viri caelo venere volantes, 

Inde ubi venere ad fauces grave olentis Averni. 
Perhaps the most remarkable instance of varied treatment, 
however, is Lucretius 6.2-5. In these lines the poet, using 
certain metrical 'licenses', has dididerunt and dederunt in ver- 
ses 2 and 4, differing in metrical treatment from recreaverunt, 
rogarunt and genuere : 

dididerunt quondam praeclaro nomine Athenae 
et recreaverunt vitam legesque rogarunt, 

"Compare also Horace Carm. 4.13.1-2. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 69 

et primae dederunt solacia dulcia vitae, 

cum genuere virum tali cum corde repertum. 
The metrical treatment of proper names next claims our at- 
tention. We find identical treatment in the large majority 
of cases, especially where the vocative is employed. This 
is due partly to the character of a proper name as such 73 , partly 
to metrical necessity. The cases in which proper names are 
repeated with variant treatment are comparatively few ; in 
nearly every such case a change of form is responsible for the 
variant treatment. In other instances change of emphasis in 
the thought determines the metrical treatment : see notes 75-76 

quae Phoebo pater omnipotens, mihi Phoebus 


Phoebus Apollo is a very convenient verse close in hexa- 
meters 74 . 
Horace, Serm. 1.7.23-24 

. . . laudat Brutum laudatque cohortem ; 

solem Asiae Brutum appellat 75 . . . 
1.10.1-2 Nempe incomposito dixi pede currere versus 

Lucili. Quis tarn Lucili fautor ineptest 76 . . . 
Juvenal 8.147, 151 (only a slight variation, for metrical ex- 
pediency) : 

carpento rapitur pinguis Lateranus, et ipse, 

cum fuerit, clara Lateranus luce flagellum. 
11.125, et Mauri celeres et Mauro obscurior Indus 77 , 

"The force and value of the proper name are well brought out in 
those cases in which a speaker uses his own name instead of em- 
ploying some form of ego or meus: compare e.g. Aen. 1.48:2.79:3.433:4. 
308:5.194, 354:6.510; Plaut. Most. 353; Lucan 1.338-340; Xen. Anab. 

74 It occurs only once, however, in the Aeneid. 

75 In 24 the emphasis is on solem Asiae, Persius's designation of 
Brutus, rather than on Brutum. 

"The major emphasis in Quis . . . est is on fautor inepte: 'who 
supports even Lucilius to that extent?' 

"Compare also Aeneid 2.56-60:3.500:4.117-124, 142-150:6.162-164, 495- 
496, 705-714, 789-792, 888-897; Bucolics 2.17-23:3.62:7.22-26:8.95-96, 96- 
98:9.26-27; Ennius, Annales 117; Lucilius 93-94; Catullus 56.1-3; Hor- 
ace, Carm. 1.12.51-52:2.13.18; Serm. 1.7.23-24, 10.2; Juvenal 3-53 -5-149 * 

70 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

shows clever metrical treatment. Mauri is the important word 
in the first part of the clause, Indus in the second. The poet, 
therefore, weakens Mauro doubly, by varying the metrical 
treatment and by subjecting its last syllable to elision. 

In Vergil, in approximately half of the instances of the 
repetition of proper names with identical treatment, metrical 
necessity conditions the treatment, if there is to be repetition 
at all. In other poets such examples outnumber the instances of 
deliberate identical treatment two to one (see again page 44). 
It must be borne in mind, again, at this point, that elision is 
left out of consideration. I cite as examples, Aeneid 2.122, 128 
Hie Ithacus vatem magno Calchanta tumultu 

vix tandem, magnis Ithaci clamoribus actus. 
6.337,341 Ecce gubernator sese Palinurus agebat. 

sic prior adloquitur : "quis te, Palinure, deorum . . ." 
Bucolics 2.69 

A Corydon, Corydon, quae te dementia cepit ! 
8.1,5 Pastorum Musam Damonis et Alphesiboei 

Damonis Musam dicemus et Alphesiboei 78 
10.37-38,41 Certe, sive mihi Phyllis, sive esset Amyntas 

seu quicumque furor quid turn, si fuscus Amyntas; 

serta mihi Phyllis legeret, cantaret Amyntas. 
Ennius, Annales in: 

sese sic memorant "O Romule, Romule die". . . 
Catullus 58.1-2 Caeli, Lesbia nostra, Lesbia ilia, 

ilia Lesbia, . . . 
Horace, Carm. 2.14.1-2 

Eheu! fugaces, Postume, Postume, 

labuntur anni . . . 
4.13.1-2 Audivere, Lyce, di mea vota, di 

audivere, Lyce : fis anus . . . 
Ovid, Met. 8.231-233 

At pater infelix, nee iam pater, "Icare", dixit, 

8.269-271:11.125; Ovid, Heroides 5.29-32; Martial 11.48.2-4; Ausonius, 
Mosella 417-418. 
78 For the position of the proper name here see above, pp. 20-21. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 71 

"Icare", dixit, "ubi es? qua te regione requiram? 

Icare", dicebat, pennas aspexit in undis 79 . 
We may now assemble some examples of repetition with' 
deliberate identical metrical treatment. 
Aeneid 3.437-438 

lunonis magnae primum prece numen adora ; 

lunoni cane vota libens, dominamque potentem. 
4.247-248 Atlantis duri, caelum qui vertice fulcit, 

Atlantis, cinctum adsidue cui nubibus atris. 
Bucolics 6.20-21 

addit se sociam, timidisque supervenit Aegle, 

Aegle 80 , naiadum pulcherrima . . . 
8.55-56 certent et cycnis ululae; sit Tityrus Orpheus, 

Orpheus 80 in silvis, inter delphinas Arion. 
8.93-94 terra, tibi mando; debent haec pignora Daphnim. 

Ducite ad urbe domum, mea carmina, ducite 

Daphnim 81 
Catullus 64.285-286 

confestim Penios adest, viridantia Tempe, 

Tempe 80 quae silvae cingunt super inpendentes. 

"Compare also Aeneid 1.553-554:2.36-49, 90-98, 371-382, 389-398, 462- 
466, 501-506, 518-541, 674-682, 769-784:3.209-210, 253-254, 523-524:4-252- 
258, 345-346, 416-421:5.322-323:6.166, 579-586:7.92-103; Bucolics 1.31- 
32:2.1-6, 35-39, 56-60:3.76-79:4-58-59:5.8-18, 43-45:7.2-3, 16-20, 63, 70:8. 
77-78:9.10-18, 23-24, 46-50:10.37-41; Catullus 8.12-19:29.5-9:45.21-23:52. 
1-4:62.20-26:92.1-2; Horace, Carm. 1.13.1-2:4.2.49-50; Ovid, Met. 4.142- 
143:5.625:6.273:13.130-179, 273-301:15.862-863; Lucan, Phar. 7.544-547; 
Seneca, De Corsica (Poet. Lat. Min. 4 pp. 55'56) i-S; Propertius 
1.12.20:3.16.41:4.1.63-64,8.68-70; Silius Italicus 1.392-394; Juvenal 1.125- 
126:5.135:7.145-147:8.159-160, 243-244; Pervig. Ven. 51-52. In Martial 
proper names are repeated with great skill and effectiveness. See, in 
addition to the above citations, 1.9.1-2, 33-1-3, 79-1-4, 117.1-18:2.7.1-5, 
19.1-4:3.61.1-2, 63.1-4:4.69.2-4:5.29.1-4, 58.1-8:6.35.2-6, 63.2-8:7.43-1-4, 
92.2-10 :8.5o.i8-i9 :io.43.i2, 89.1-5 :n.92.i-2 :i2.39.i-4. 

80 Compare above, p. 21, note 37. 

81 Compare what was said above, p. 20, of Vergil's fondness for re- 
peating proper names at verse-ends. Compare also Aeneid 2.270-282, 
622-625:4.312-313, 694-700:5.116-117, 252-254:6.322-331, 403-4U, 467-475, 
539-559, 584-586, 703-711, 713-723, 766-770:747-48; Bucolics 3.2, 60:5.57- 
66:7.1-9:8.26-29:10.72-73; Terence, Phormio 373-374; Catullus 4-27:34- 
1-3:61. 124-125:62.5:65.20:68.09:78.1-5:95.1-6:100.1:112.1-2; Ovid, Tristia 
1.3.85-86; Silius Italicus 10.515-519; Martial 1.109.19-21:5.24.1-15:8.5.1- 
2; Ausonius, Mosella 359-361. 

7 2 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

Tibullus 1.7.39-41 

Bacchus et agricolae magno confecta labore 
pectora tristitiae dissolvenda dedit. 

Bacchus et adflictis requiem mortalibus affert. 
Martial 2.20.1 Carmina Paulus emit, recitat sua carmina 

Claudian, De Raptu Pros. 1.134-135 

Mars clipeo melior, Phoebus praestantior arcu. 

Mars donat Rhodopen, Phoebus largitur Amyclas. 
Finally, I cite a few examples of the combined identical and 
variant treatment of proper names. In nearly every case a 
change of form is largely instrumental in bringing about this 
Aeneid 2.318-319, 322 

Ecce autem telis Panthus elapsus Achivom, 

Panthus Othryades, arcis Phoebique sacerdos, 

"Quo res summa loco, Panthu? Quam prendimus 
arcem ?" 

Bucolics 2.31-33 

Mecum una in silvis imitabere Pana canendo 
Pan primus calamos cera coniungere pluris 
instituit; Pan curat ovis oviumque magistros 82 . 

5.51-52 dicemus, Daphnimque tuum tollemus ad astra; 

Daphnim ad astra feremus: amavit nos quoque 

Catullus 100. i, 5, 8 

Caelius Aufilenum et Quintus Aufilenam 

Cui faveam potius ? Caeli, tibi : nam tua nobis 

Sis felix, Caeli, sis in amore potens. 
Ovid, Fasti 6.295, 298-299 

Esse diu stultus Vestae simulacra putavi, 

Effigiem nullam Vesta nee ignis habet. 
Stat vi terra sua : vi stando Vesta vocatur. 
Persius 5.79-81 

Marcus Dama. papae! Marco spondente recusas 
credere tu nummos? Marco sub iudice palles? 
Marcus dixit: ita est; adsigria, Marce, tabellas. 

83 The Teubner text omits lines 32-33. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 73 

Martial 10.101 

Elysio redeat si forte remissus ab agro 
ille suo felix Caesare Gabba vetus, 

qui Capitolinum pariter Gabbamque iocantes 

audierit, dicet: "Rustice Gabba, tace" 83 . 

We enter now upon the discussion and illustration of the 
metrical treatment of nouns. In Vergil nouns are repeated more 
frequently than any other class of words (page 63), while in 
the.other poets verbs are repeated more frequently; in Aeneid 6 
the preponderance of examples of the repetition of nouns over 
those of the recurrence of verbs is especially marked. 

The first example to be cited here will illustrate variant 
treatment; in some cases, at least, the consideration which 
prompted the variant treatment or made it seem desirable may 
be discerned. See Catullus 62.21-22 

Qui natam possis complexu avellere matris, 

complexu matris retinentem avellere natam. 
In these two lines the verb avellere receives (necessarily) 
similar treatment, the idea contained in it being the most im- 
portant in the sentence. Natam, complexu and matris receive 
variant treatment. The variant treatment in these two lines 
serves also as a diversion from Hespere, qui caelo which begins 
lines 22 and 26. 
Aeneid 3.80 

Rex Anius, rex idem hominum Phoebique sacerdos. 
3.119 taurum Neptuno, taurum tibi, pulcher Apollo. 

Here, it may be said, tibi rather than the second taurum needs 
the weight of the ictus. 
3.247-248 Bellum etiam pro caede bourn stratisque iuvencis, 

Laomedontiadae, bellumne inferre paratis? 84 
5.324 ecce volat calcemque terit iam calce Diores 84 . 

6.46 tempus ait ; "Deus, ecce, deus . . ," 84 

Horace, Carm. 1.3.27-29 

Audax lapeti genus 

ignem fraude mala gentibus intulit. 

Post ignem aetheria domo . . . 

"Compare also Aeneid 2.176-185:6.69-77; Bucolics 5.20-30:6.7-12:8.81- 
55:9.53-61:10.2-10; Catullus 64.19-21; Ovid, Amores 1.15.29-30; Mar- 
tial 1 1. 80. i -8. 

"Similar treatment would, I think, have been more effective here. 

74 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

1.12.50-52 . . . tibi cura magni 

Caesaris fatis data: tu secundo 

Caesare regnes 85 . 
Seneca, Medea 168 

NUTR. Rex est timendus. MED. Rex meus fu- 

erat pater. 
95~95 2 haut aliter meum 

cor fluctuatur. Ira pietatem fugat 

iramque pietas cede pietati, dolor. 

Here variant treatment (ira-iram) and identical treatment (in 
the triple pietas) are skillfully combined. 
Ovid, Fasti 2.85-86 

Saepe sequens agnam lupus est a voce retentus, 

saepe avidum fugiens restitit agna lupum. 
Here variant treatment is made possible or at least helped by a 
skillfully manipulated polyptoton. 
The situation is similar in Claudian, De IV Con. Hon. Aug. 


Nunc eques in medias equitum te consere turmas, 
nunc pedes assistas pediti 86 . 

We come now to instances of identical metrical treatment in 
the repetition of nouns. This treatment is far more frequent in 
all the poets than variant treatment. In a large number of 
cases identical treatment is made necessary by the meter 87 ; in 
Vergil the instances of forced and of deliberate identical treat- 
ment are approximately equal in number, while in other poets 
the former type predominates. I cite first some examples of 

85 Here the nature of the verse-forms made variant treatment ine- 
vitable, or at least highly probable, if Caesaris and Caesare were to 
be used in adjacent lines. 

86 1 refer here to a very few of the great number of examples of 
variant treatment: Aeneid 2.24-28, 127-129, 330-335, 468-470, 490-493, 
602, 632-633, 663-666, 733, 746-749, 777-783:3.265, 539-540:4.25-26, 420- 
424, 628, 629:6.86, 109-112, 310-312, 380, 406, 661-663, 857-859:10.361; 
Bucolics 1.6-7 :2.56-57, 63-64 :4.i5 :5.64 :6.32-37, 55-56 :8.s6-58 ; 
Ennius, Annales 187-191; Terence, Phormio 352-353,397-398; Lucilius 
140, 1220-1221; Catullus 31.1:112.1-2; Lucretius 1.688-691; Horace, 
Carm. 3.16.15; Ovid, Met. 7.198; Lucan, Phar. 8.194-196; Seneca, 
Medea 487-488, 967-969; Statius, Silvae 1.3.99-102; Juvenal 5.49-51,, 
iu "7 157-158:10.98-101 ; Ausonius, Mosella 29-31, 355-356. 

87 Elison is again disregarded. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 75 

identical treatment made necessary by the meter (if there is 
to be repetition at all: see page 44). 
Aeneid 2.116, 118 

Sanguine placastis ventos et virgine caesa, 

sanguine quaerendi reditus . . . 
2.405-406 ad caelum tendens ardentia lumina frustra, 

lumina, nam teneras arcebant vincula palmas 
4.173-174 Extemplo Libyae magnas it Fama per urbes, 

Fama, malum qua non aliud velocius ullum. 
6.303,306 et ferruginea subvectat corpora cumba, 

matres atque viri, defunctaque corpora vita. 
Bucolics 1.3-4 

nos patriae fines et dulcia linquimus arva: 

nos patriam fugimus . . . 
Catullus 94.1-2 

Mentula moechatur. Moechatur mentula certe. 
Horace, Carm. 1.35.15 

ad arma cessantes, ad arma 88 . 
Seneca, Medea 55 

quae scelere parta est, scelere linquenda est domus. 
Martial 1.47 

Nuper erat medicus, nunc est vispillo Diaulus: 

quod vispillo facit, fecerat et medicus. 
Pervigilium Veneris 53-56 

Ruris hie erunt puellae vel puellae fontium 

iussit at nudo puellas nil Amori credere 89 . 

88 This type of repetition, involving a phrase, is not at all frequent 
in Horace. 

89 Compare also (again, to save space, reference is made to a small 
percentage of the available passages) Aeneid 2.179-181, 187-193, 385- 
387, 389-392, 668:4.1-5,4-11, 8-9, 13-22, 409-416, 476-478, 495-498, 688- 
691 :6.5i-55, 136-141, 225-230, 231-233, 335-355, 403-405, 507-509, 587-591, 
599-604, 653-655, 695-698, 7I4-73I, 774-776, 812-819, 900-901:7.9-13, 30- 
36, 50-52; Bucolics 1.47-52, 75-78:3.44-48, 93-98:6.25:7.52-56, 62-64:8.10- 
12, 92-93, 103-108:10.3, 53-54J Ennius, Scenica 322-323; Lucilius 27-30, 
1334-1335; Lucretius 2.54-58; Catullus 3.3-4:34.2-4:49.5-6:51.13-15:61. 
128-140:62.42-47, 53-55:67.12-14:82.1-4; Horace, Carm. 4.2.13; Epod. 
14.5-6; Serm. 1.6.45-46; Ovid, Amores 1.3.20-21; Fasti 1.68; Met. i.iu, 
504-505, 556:12.241; Tristia 1.3.86; Tibullus 1.2.7-9; Propertius 2.3.19- 

76 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

For examples of the deliberate identical treatment of nouns, 
compare Aeneid 2.162, 170 

Omnis spes Danaum et coepti fiducia belli 

spes Danaum, fractae vires, aversa deae mens. 
4-5 2 7 53 rura tenant, somno positae sub nocte silenti 

solvitur in somnos, oculisve aut pectore noctem . . . 
6.765 educet silvis regem regumque parentem . . . 

Bucolics 3.3, 5 

Infelix o semper, oves, pecus! ipse Neaeram 

hie alienus ovis custos bis mulget in hora. 
9.47-48 Ecce Dionaei processit Caesaris astrum, 

astrum, quo segetes gauderent f rugibus . . . 
One of the best examples of this type of iteration is Plautus ; 
Most. 561-612, especially in the Danista's words in 603-605 

Cedo faenus, redde faenus, faenus reddite. 

Daturin estis faenus actutum mihi ? 

Datur faenus mihi ? 

To this Tranio replies with biting sarcasm, in 605-606, Faenus 
illic, faenus hie! nescit quidem nisi faenus fabularier. 'Interest 
to right of us, interest to left of us' 90 cries Tranio, etc. 
Catullus 62.60-61 

non aequomst pugnare, pater cui tradidit ipse, 

ipse pater cum matre, quibus parere necesse est. 
Horace, Epp. 1.1.53 

O cives, cives, quaerenda pecunia primumst. 

22, 8.7-8:4.9.67-68; Lucan, Phar. 1.25-27:3.647-6547-157-160, 551-557:8. 
474-480; Silius Italicus 1.517-519:15.580-583; Statius, Silvae 1.6.76-81; 
Juvenal 3.158:4.35-36:12.111; Martial 1.76.1-2:2.20.1, 41.1-4:5.29.1-4:8.5. 
1-2:9.88.1-3, 97.1-12; Ausonius, Mosella 196-197; Pervig. Ven. 28-35, 
37-41, 76-77; Prudentius, Hymnus ad Incensum Lucernae 154. 

80 In Most. 561-612 only once does faenus fail to show complete 
coincidence of word accent and ictus: this is in 605, where the edi- 
tors read, at the beginning of the verse, datur faenus mihi? This 
reading is surely wrong; we need the coincidence, if anywhere, im- 
mediately before Tranio's comment Faenus illic, faenus hie (see above, 
p. 9). Read datur mihi (mi} faenus f and we have coincidence re- 
stored, as everywhere else in this whole passage. P reads Date mihi 
fenus. Leo suggested datin faenus? (if I understand his critical note) ; 
this too would restore the coincidence of ictus and word-accent. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 77 

Seneca, Medea 107-108 

concesso, iuvenes, Indite iurgio, 

hinc illinc, iuvenes, mittite carmina. 
Martial 1.9.1-2 

Bellus homo et magnus vis idem Cotta, videri : 

sed qui bellus homo est, Cotta, pusillus homo est 91 . 
Examples of combined identical and variant treatment of 
repeated nouns, wherein may be seen harmony and variety side 
by side, are Aeneid 3-539-54O 

Et pater Anchises : "Bellum, o terra hospita, portas ; 

bello armantur equi, bellum haec armenta minantur". 

4.134, 138-139 

Poenorum expectant, ostroque msignis et auro 

cui pharetra ex auro, crines nodantur in aurum, 
aurea purpuream subnectit fibula vestem. 
Bucolics 10.21, 28-29 

Omnes "Unde amor iste" rogant "tibi?" Venit 
Apollo : 

"Ecquis erit modus?" inquit. "Amor non talia. 

curat ; 

nee lacrimis crudelis Amor, nee gramina rivis". 
Lucilius 244-246 

bulgam. et quidquid habet nummorum, secum 

habet ipse, 

cum bulga cenat, dormit, lavit. Omnia in una 
sunt homini bulga: bulga haec devincta <la>certo 


91 Here the adjectives are the important words. For a very few out 
of the all but numberless examples of this type of iteration see Aeneid 
2.157-158, 443-447, 508-511, 608-609, 768-772:4-56-62, 200-204, 342-348, 
356-358, 404-406, 4!2-4i4, 435-438:6.6-7, 78-82, 92-97, 159-166, 179-186, 
203-206, 268-271, 289-294, 415-419, 491-492, 523-525, 614-615, 839-842:7.23- 
27; Bucolics 1.19-25:2.60-62, 68:3.1-5, 104-106:4.3, 60-62:5.32-33:6.47-52: 
7.41-45, 65-68:8.43-47, 55-61, 82-83:10.75-76; Ennius, Annales 1-2, 177, 
288-289; Plautus, Most. 637-642; Lucilius 839-840, 1015-1016, 1326-1333; 
Catullus 42.11-12:6245-56:64.256-259; Horace, Carm. 2.16.1-6:4.13.1; 
Epp. 1.1.65-66; Ovid, Fasti 6.299; Heroides 10.93-94; Met. 1.481-482; 
Lucan, Phar. 2.448-450:5.546-548:6.257-259; Seneca, Medea 649-650, 932- 
933; Silius Italicus 3.425-426; Statius, Silvae 1.5.48-49; Martial 1.117. 
2-5 :6.35.i-6; Juvenal 7.197-198; Ausonius, Mosella 323-324, 479-481. 

78 Repetition In Latin Poetry 

Horace, Serm. 1.4.48-49, 53, 56 "At pater ardens 

saevit, quod meretrice nepos insanus arnica 

audiret leviora, pater si viveret?..." 

quo personatus pacto pater . . . 
Martial 2.19 

Felicem fieri credis me, Zoile, cenaf 
Felicem cena, Zoile, deinde tua? 

Debet Aricino conviva recumbere clivo, 

quem tua felicem, Zoile, cena facit 92 . 
11.18.1-3 Donasti, Lupe, rus sub urbe nobis, 

sed rus est mihi maius in fenestra. 

Rus hoc dicere, rus potes vocare? 93 

Finally, attention may be called to some alterations of quan- 
tity in repetitions; such alterations are due, it would seem, 
to metrical exigencies. On Horace, Carm. 1.32.11, et Lycum 
nigris oculis nigroque, Mr. T. E. Page wrote as follows : 'When 
the Roman poets repeat a word they often so place it that the 
ictus falls differently on it in the two positions. ... In conse- 
quence of this fondness the poets often absolutely alter the 
quantity of a word when they repeat it". Since it has been 
shown in the preceding pages that repetition with identical 
treatment is, to say the least, quite as common as repetition 
with variant treatment, and, further, that identical treatment 
is regularly employed where emphasis, emotional or rhetorical 
effects are desired, it seems hardly right to attribute the 
instances of the alteration of quantity to the poet's fondness for 
repetition with a changed accent, as Mr. Page seems to do. 
Further, Mr. Page combines, without differentiation, examples 

92 This epigram has been quoted twice before (pp. 62 and 71, foot- 
note 79), for felicem and Zoile, respectively. Many of the epigrams 
thus contain two or more parts of speech with interesting metrical 

* 3 Compare also Aeneid 2.314-317, 315-322:4.151-164, 555-560:6.60- 
73,64-68, 204-208, 820-832; Bucolics 2.17-23:3.102-109:8.47-50, 67-70; 
Ennius, Scenica 234-236; Plautus, Most. 248-251, 832-838; Lucilius 
20-22; Terence, Phormio 385-386; Lucretius 4.416-419, 1257-1261; Catul- 
lus 64.213-216; Seneca, Medea 290-293; Tibullus 2.6.20-27; Persius 2.53- 
59; Martial 1.100.1-2:3.63.1-4; Pervig. Yen. 2-3, 49-52; Prudentius, 
Hymnus ante Sompnum 7-8. 

Repetition In Latin Poetry 79 

which show two different types of things: (a) alteration of 
vowel quantity, as in Theocritus 6.19, TO, ^ KaXa KaXa W^avTai, 
Lucretius 4.1259 liquidis et liquida (see Munro ad loc.), Lucre- 
tius 2.452, 464, 466 fluvido, fluvida, fluvidus (see Munro ad 
loc.), and (b) change in syllable quantity, as in Horace's own 
nigris - nigro, and Vergil, Aeneid 2.663 ante ora P&trts* patrem, 
etc. Examples of (b) are not rare; those of (a), with which 
alone we are concerned here, are, I think, rare 94 . At any rate 
Lucilius 354-355 and Martial 9.11.14-15 animadvert unfavor- 
ably on 'Ape? "Apes in Iliad 5-3I 95 . Examples from Latin, 
in addition to those cited above, are Vergil, Bucolics 3.79 

et longum "Formose, vale, vale", inquit, "lolla". 
6.43-44 .... Hylan nautae quo fonte relictum 

clamassent, ut litus "Hyla, Hyla" omne sonaret. 

94 Compare e.g. beside those given above, Ovid, Met. 13.607-608. I 
disregard, for obvious reasons, passages showing the two possible met- 
rical treatments of such words as mihi, tibi. 

95 See Leaf ad loc. Reference may be allowed here to some perti- 
nent Greek examples: Theocr. 8.19; Callim. Hym. lov. 55. 


Hubert McNeill Poteat was born December 12, 1886, at 
Wake Forest, North Carolina. He was graduated from Wake 
Forest College with the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1906. 
In 1905-1908 he was Instructor in Latin in the College, pur- 
suing, at the same time, his studies for the degree of Master 
of Arts, which he received in 1908. In 1908-1910 he held at 
Columbia University the Drisler Fellowship in Classical Phi- 
lology. It was his great privilege there to work under the 
direction of Professors James Chidester Egbert, Charles 
Knapp, Nelson Glenn McCrea, George N. Olcott, Harry Thurs- 
ton Peck, James S. Reid, James Rignall Wheeler, and Dr. 
Roscoe Guernsey. To all these scholars he desires to express 
his deep gratitude for their interest, advice and guidance. His 
thanks are due especially to Professor Knapp, who suggested 
to him the theme of this treatise, and by his constant and 
inspiring aid made possible its completion. 

In 1910-1912 he was Master in Latin in the Hotchkiss 
School. In August, 1911, he was elected Professor of Latin in 
Wake Forest College, his work to begin in September, 1912. 


Return to desk from which borrowed. 
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 

LD 21-100w-ll,'49(B7146sl6)476 


RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
University of California Library 

or to the 

Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
University of California 
Richmond, CA 94804-4698 


2-month loans may be renewed by calling 

1-year loans may be recharged by bringing 
books to NRLF 

Renewals and recharges may be made 
4 days prior to due date 


FEB 1 6 2009 


JUL 2 4 2006 

DD20 6M 9-03